Orthodontic Tooth Movement: Ideal Rate and Force

orthodontic Tooth Movement Ideal Rate and stringAnanth KadekodiDescribe and discuss the concept of the saint rate and hurl for Orthodontic tooth consummation. Provide evidence for and against the claims of this sample.Orthodontic tooth presence is a transition that combines pathologic, physiologic and biological responses to externally applied fiercenesss (Wise, King, cc8). It is explained by the pressure strain theory and arise bending theory. Pressure tension theory states that tooth front line occurs in the periodontal space by creating a pressure human face and a tension side (Schwarz, 1932). Conversely, bone bending theory states that absorb delivered, firmnesss in bending of the tooth and its surrounding structure, whilst altering the cellular activity for bone remodelling. Additionally, tooth consummation is excessively comprised of three grades, which include the initial phase, lag phase and post lag phase (Burstone, 1962). Currently, in that location is b eing a shift, from the tension on wedge application to the biological and biochemical factors affecting tooth fecal matter (Mayne, 2014). Nevertheless, at a lower placestanding of the crusade magnitude and its temporal characteristics is important ascertain the ideal rate and wring of orthodontic tooth driveway. Study conducted by various scientists, showed that variables such as force magnitude endless vs sporadic force singular divergences tooth variations and dissimilar types of tooth gallery play a use of goods and services in determining the ideal and rate and force of tooth movement.Studies by Hixon et al. (1970) showed that higher forces moved teething farther in 8 hebdomads than visible radiationer forces. The studies showed an enlarge in upper jawbone bathroomine movement in all moreover one of the subjects. The trials demo that as the force increase from 200 grams to 300 grams, the tooth movement for uncomplaining B increased from 0.15 mm/week to 0 .25 mm/week. This is a result of the higher forces generating a metabolic response sooner and at a much rapid rate, resulting in an increased tooth movement. Additionally, study conducted by Andreasen, and Johnson (1967) on sixteen females, showed teeth exposed to the 400 grams moved further than 200 gm, at a rate of 2.5 times to that of the lower force. Moreoer, heavier force, also stir an increased anchor teeth movement ( storey, 1973). However, studies by Owman-moll, Kurol, and Lundgren (1996) have claimed that maximal tooth movement backside be achieved even with light forces. This is also support by Storey (1973), who state little differences in deposeine movement between heavy and light forces. Moreover, Ren, mineral tar, Kuijpers-Jagtman (2003) support this viewpoint by stating that, there is no specific best force but a round-eyed range of forces evoke a biological response in the periodontal waver for ideal tooth movement. Additionally, Owman-moll et al. (1996) t hrough their studies showed that, man heavy forces increase tooth movement, they can also damage the tooth and increase the rate of root resorption. Storey (1973) ascertained that some trauma is associated even with applied light orthodontic forces. In order to cook adequate biological response in the periodontium, light forces cause frontal bone resorption but heavy forces can cause PDL necrosis, on with bone and root resorption (Krishnan, Davidovich, 2006). Hence, an best force is an extrinsic mechanical stimulus, with the aim of restoring the equilibrium of periodontal bread and butter tissue remodelling via cellular response. It should lead to a maximum rate of tooth movement, while ensuring minimal irreversible root, PDL and alveolar bone damage. Also, this force should produce a maximum rate of tooth movement, whilst ensuring patient comfort (Proffit, Fields, Sarver, 2013 Ren at al., 2003). odontiasis react differently, depending on whether the force is continuous or in termittent. Studies by Oates, Moore, and Caputo (1978) showed tooth movement exposed to low level of intermittent tooth forces were equal to that of continuous forces. except at higher force levels, intermittent forces produce greater tooth movement within a shorter period of time. However, results from study conducted by Owman-Moll, Kurol, and Lundgren (1995) showed continuous forces (4.3mm +/- 1.5mm) were more strong than intermittent forces (2.9 +/- 0.6mm) in achieving tooth movement. Furthermore, the study also showed no fundamental root resorption differences between the two forces in the end. Proffit et al. (2013) believe that effective tooth movement occurs with longer and continuous forces between 4 8 hours. They also believe that light continuous forces produce the best tooth movement and these forces should be light enough to ensure save frontal resorption. However, heavy continuous forces should be avoided payable to tissue damage but heavy intermittent force is cli nically acceptable although it is less efficient.Study conducted by Hixon et al. (1970) showed the role of one-on-one variation affecting tooth movement, with some individuals displaying increased movement than others. These individual variations are in regard with different root areas, metabolic responses and facial growth. The variations resulted in altered time and rate of tooth movement between individuals. Additionally, one-time(a) patients with lower metabolism and increased facial growth showed less movement, in comparison to a younger patient. The variation is also attributed to differences in tissue characteristics. The younger patients have umteen celled periodontal membrane uncalcified osteoid bone top of the inning lining and loose fibrous marrow space tissue, meaning that they take a shit the proliferation stage of tissue changes earlier than older adults. This will result in tooth movement (initial phase) starting earlier in younger people (Reitan, 1957). Addition ally, Pilon, Kuijpers-Jagtman, and Maltha (1996), stated that individual differences in bone density, metabolism and PDL dollar volume can also be responsible for the variations. Each individual has his/her best pressure for tooth movement and that in slow movers the optimum forces were not applied.Hixon et al. (1970), though his study demonstrated different teeth having different optimal rank and force for tooth movement. The results noted an increased canine movement, in comparison to molars. This is due to the root surface area of the canine being lesserthan molar, with the forces being distributed over a larger area rather than being concentrated (in the elusion with canines). Moreover, Proffit et al. (2013) also support this theory through their table, which shows a smaller force for anterior teeth and a larger force for posteriors. Additionally, Smith and Storey (1952) stated the optimum range for the maximum rate of movement is 150-200cN for canines with after studies by Lee (1964) increasing the range to 260cN. Through their studies, Lundgren, Ownman-Moll, and Kurol (1996) stated the ideal rate of horizontal tooth crown movement was 0.8 mm during the first week and 3.7mm after 7 weeks. However, intraoral location also makes a difference, with maxillary canines having an increased movement in comparison to their mandibular counterparts (Hixon et al., 1970). However, Ren, Maltha, and Vant Hof (2003) stated no differences in movement between the maxillary and mandibular canines. Hence, the implications of intraoral location on tooth movement are still unclear.Proffit et al. (2013) have stated that different types of tooth movement have different optimal forces and these include tipping movement (35-60 gm) definition (70-120 gm) root uprighting (50-100gm) rotation (35-60 gm) extrusion (35-60gm) and intrusion (10-20 gm).Using results from past studies, along with the consideration of the above variables, Quinn, and Yoshikawa (1985) have developed four hypotheses, related to force application and tooth movement. scheme 1 is a constant relationship and Hypothesis 2, is linear relationship between the rate of tooth movement and stress. Hypothesis 3 states that increasing stress increases the rate of tooth movement to a maximum after which the rate declines with additional stress. Lastly, hypothesis 4 states that tooth movement increases with stress up to a point after which additional stress causes no increase in tooth movement. Quinn and Yoshikawa support hypothesis 4, as it supported by abundant observational and clinical data. This hypothesis is also supported by Hixon et al., with his results screening a wishing of tooth movement after a certain force application. nevertheless Ren, Maltha, and Vant Hof (2003), challenged this model due to a tuck in of available data with high forces, and created a new mathematical model, where shows no tooth movement with no force, but as the force increases, the movement also increases u ntil a certain force, after which the movement stays constant or slightly decreases but will never become negative. This is in argumentation to hypothesis 4, which stated the movement as being constant but never decreasing.From the above essay, we can see that there is still a lack of definite answer for an ideal force and rate of tooth movement, and this can attributed to four main reasons. The first reason is due to a lack of ability to count on stress and strain at the periodontal ligament. just about studies discussed above, were based on the application of the force to the tooth, but not the forces confidential information to biological reactions. The second reason is due to the lack of tooth movement control, with just about studies involving tooth tipping which causes uneven stress distribution in periodontal ligament. Moreover, measurements are do at the crown, and not at the stress areas, resulting in force overestimation. Additionally, many of the studies were conduc ted during a short period of time, making the data relevant only for the first two phases of tooth movement. Lastly, variation both among and within individuals, makes it difficult to calculate optimal force and rate, as each individual has his/her individualised optimal values (Ren, Maltha, Kuijpers-Jagtman, 2003).In conclusion, we can see that more studies need to be conducted to determine the ideal rate and force of orthodontic tooth movement. Tooth movement is impact by factors such as force magnitude individual and tooth variation intermittent or continuous forces and different types of tooth movement. Additionally, Quinn and Yoshikawa believed that tooth movement increases with stress up to a point after which additional increases create no movement. But this was challenged by Maltha, who stated that the movement can also decrease. The above factors, in addition to the four main reasons discussed above show that there is no ideal rate and force of orthodontic tooth movement. REFERENCESAndreasen, G., Johnson, P. (1967). Experimental findings on tooth movements under two conditions of applied force. The Angle orthodontist, 37(1), 9-12. Retrieved from http//www.angle.org/inside/pdf/10.1043/0003 3219(1967)037%3C0009EFOTMU%3E2.0.CO%3B2Burstone, C. J. (1962). The biomechanics of tooth movement. Vistas in dental orthopaedics, Lea Febiger, Philadelphia, 197-213.Farrar, J. N. (1888). A Treatise on the Irregularities of the Teeth and Their CorrectionIncluding, with the Authors Practice, Other Current Methods (Vol. 1). De Vinne Press.Hixon, E. H., Aasen, T. O., Arango, J., Clark, R. A., Klosterman, R., Miller, S. S., Odom, W. M. (1970). On force and tooth movement.American Journal of Orthodontics,57(5), 476-489. inside10.1016/0002-9416(70)90166-1Krishnan, V., Davidovitch, Z. E. (2006). Cellular, molecular, and tissue-level reactions to orthodontic force. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 129(4), 469-e1. inside 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005. 10.007Lee, B. W. (1965). Relationship between tooth-movement rate and estimated pressureapplied. Journal of dental research, 44(5), 1053-1053. doi 10.1177/00220345650440051001Lundgren, D., Owman-Moll, P., Kurol, J. (1996). beforehand(predicate) tooth movement pattern afterapplication of acontrolled continuous orthodontic force. A human experimental model. American daybook of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 110(3), 287 295. doi 10.1016/S0889-5406(96)80013-8Mayne, R. (2014).DEN2CGD,Lecture 11, Topic 2, Physiology of orthodontic tooth movement Point slides. DEN2CGD, Bendigo, Australia La Trobe University, Department of Health Sciences.Oates, J. C., Moore, R. N., Caputo, A. A. (1978). Pulsating forces in orthodontic treatment. American journal of orthodontics, 74(5), 577-586. doi 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90033Owman-Moll, P., Kurol, J., Lundgren, D. (1995). Continuous versus interruptedcontinuous orthodontic force related to early tooth movement and root resorption. The Angle Orthodontist, 65(6), 395-401. Retrieved from http//www.angle.org/doi/pdf/10.1043/00033219(1995)065 F%3E2.0.CO%3B2Owman-Moll, P., Kurol, J., Lundgren, D. (1996). The effects of a four-fold increasedorthodontic force magnitude on tooth movement and root resorptions. An intra individual study in adolescents. The European Journal of Orthodontics, 18(3), 287 294. doi 10.1093/ejo/18.3.287Pilon, J. J., Kuijpers-Jagtman, A. M., Maltha, J. C. (1996). Magnitude of orthodonticforces and rate of bodily tooth movement. An experimental study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 110(1), 16-23. doi 10.1016/S0889 5406(96)70082-3Proffit, W. R., Fields Jr, H. W., Sarver, D. M. (2013). Contemporary orthodontics. StLouis, molybdenum MosbyQuinn, R. S., Ken Yoshikawa, D. (1985). A reassessment of force magnitude inorthodontics. American journal of orthodontics, 88(3), 252-260. doi 10.1016/S0002 9416(85)90220-9Reitan, K. (1957). Some factors determining the evaluation of for ces in orthodontics.American Journal of Orthodontics, 43(1), 32-45. doi 10.1016/0002-9416(57)90114-8Ren, Y., Maltha, J. C., Kuijpers-Jagtman, A. M. (2003). Optimum force magnitude fororthodontic tooth movement a systematic belles-lettres review. The Angle orthodontist, 73(1), 86-92. Retrieved from http//www.angle.org/doi/full/10.1043/0003 3219(2003)073%3C0086OFMFOT%3E2.0.CO2Ren, Y., Maltha, J. C., Vant Hof, M. A., Kuijpers-Jagtman, A. M. (2004). Optimum force magnitude for orthodontic tooth movement a mathematic model. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics, 125(1), 71-77. inside 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.02.005Schwarz, A. M. (1932). Tissue changes incidental to orthodontic tooth movement.International Journal of Orthodontia, Oral Surgery and Radiography, 18(4), 331 352. doi 10.1016/S00996963(32)80074-8Storey, E. (1973). The nature of tooth movement. American journal of orthodontics, 63(3), 292-314. doi 10.1016/0002-9416(73)90353-9Storey, E., Smith, R. (1952). F orce in orthodontics and its relation to tooth movement. Aust Dent,56(1), 11-8.Wise, G. E., King, G. J. (2008). Mechanisms of tooth eruption and orthodontic toothmovement. Journal of dental research, 87(5), 414-434. doi10.1177/154405910808700509