Comparative evaluation of Effectiveness of indigenous MV loop design for complete anterior teeth movement as compared to Opus and Snail loop designs using finite element method and clinical intervention.

Evaluation of efficacy of MV loop for enmasse anterior retraction as compared to Opus and Snail loop using finite element method and clinical intervention - NIL

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 2

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2023/06/054509

Enrollment

Registered

2023-06-27

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2023-07-25

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K088- Other specified disorders of teethand supporting structures Health Condition 2: Z00-Z13- Persons encountering health services for examinations

Interventions

Intervention1: MV loop: MV loop: occluso-gingival height will be kept 7 mm and mesio-distally extended to 9 mm. 0.017Ã?0.025 inch SS. For loop models - varied combination of alpha and beta bends wil

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Patients with Class I with Deweyâ??s modification type 2. 2. Moderate Anchorage cases 3. 1st premolar extraction case. 4. Complete dentition cases with age 18-30 years.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Periodontally compromised cases. 2. Missing or grossly carious 1st molar cases. 3. Coronal coverage and restoration. 4. T-loop â?? it is similar to MV loop, but as the loop has moment to force ratio of 6:1, it does not provide translation. Therefore, loop which provide moment to force ratio close to 10 are selected for study.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
The FEM analysis and clinical trials will predict the perfect design of loop with adequate preactivation bends. Mainly on DHAL analysis MV loop showed 10:1 M:F ratio. Similar results are expected on FEM analysis and clinical trials. MV loop will show superior results as compared to Opus and Snail loop. Bodily tooth movement will be achieved with minimum anchorage loss is expected with MV loop. Problem with high vestibular depth will be solved and rotational control will be addressed with MV loop.Timepoint: 6 months.	—

Measure

Time frame

The FEM analysis and clinical trials will predict the perfect design of loop with adequate preactivation bends. Mainly on DHAL analysis MV loop showed 10:1 M:F ratio. Similar results are expected on FEM analysis and clinical trials. MV loop will show superior results as compared to Opus and Snail loop. Bodily tooth movement will be achieved with minimum anchorage loss is expected with MV loop. Problem with high vestibular depth will be solved and rotational control will be addressed with MV loop.Timepoint: 6 months.

—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
Anchorage loss associated with MV loop snail loop and opus loop.Timepoint: 6 months	—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactVIKRANT VISHWAS JADHAV

Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences

ranjitkamble2506@gmail.com9822231975

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026