BRMU9103154Y1 - constructive arrangement applied in orthodontic containment - Google Patents

Abstract

constructive arrangement applied in orthodontic containment. utility patent for an orthodontic retaining construction arrangement, comprising a 3x3 type, male-female fitting, and at the base of the female (1) mechanical (2) retentions are provided for fixing by gluing to the lingual face of the lower canines (3) with composite resin so that inside the "female" (1) a hole (4) is provided for the fitting of the "male" (5) and, In the center of the cavity there is provided an elastic ring (6) which fits precisely into a groove made in the socket (7) of the "male" (5), and at the end of the "males" (5) there may be extensions ( 8) metal for retaining acrylic (9) or locking means for welding a thick metallic wire (10), which surrounds the lingual face of the anterior lower teeth (11), so that when retaining in acrylic is chosen (9), a thinner wire (10) is soldered to the "male" socket (5) and shortly thereafter, the wire (10) and the terminal are coated with acrylic (9), and the "males" (5) may have angles on the socket arms (12).

Description

This descriptive report deals with the utility model patent of an unprecedented lower removable orthodontic retainer, notably a device used in orthodontic treatments, with an innovative design and endowed with important technological, biological and functional improvements, in accordance with the required standards and specifications, having their own characteristics and with fundamental requirements of novelty and inventive act, resulting in a series of real and extraordinary technical, practical and economic advantages.

During the evolution of the specialty, orthodontists often seek methods to ensure the stability of the corrections obtained with the treatment, especially in the anterior mandibular region, after crowding correction.

Despite all efforts, orthodontic treatment is susceptible to recurrence. Orthodontic post-treatment tooth movement is a threat to the normal pattern of treated occlusion and to the idea of immutable, eternal and permanent dental positioning. In the specific case of anterior crowding, it is difficult to establish the difference between relapse, which is the return to initial malocclusion, and maturational behavior, regardless of previous treatment, which routinely occurs in untreated cases, known as tertiary crowding. Many studies have demonstrated the unpredictability of recurrence after orthodontic treatment. For this reason, it is difficult to find solid bases for deciding whether a patient needs prolonged restraint or not.

Evidence suggests that prolonged use of

2/9 containment reduces the likelihood of recurrence of the anterior lower segment. Several removable and fixed retainers have been introduced for this purpose. However, prolonged anterior mandibular restraint with bonded devices tends to cause periodontal changes, requiring careful use of retention protocols, after a thorough analysis of anatomical, hygienic, social and cultural factors. In addition, frequent control must be adopted. Although there is no scientific evidence of the containment period, some types of fibers in the periodontal ligament take 232 days to remodel. In an attempt to assist in the containment process, accessory procedures have been proposed, such as: interproximal wear or circumferential syndesmotomy of supra-alveolar fibers.

The etiology of recurrence can be associated with multiple factors, including periodontal and occlusal factors, habits or masticatory forces, soft tissue pressures and growth.

Containment can be established by installing removable or fixed devices, and there is no statistically significant difference for the lower anterior segment.

There are several techniques, direct and indirect, that use lower retainers with different designs and materials. Due to the lack of scientific evidence, it appears that current recommendations are based largely on personal preference and not on scientific criteria. This triggered the use of various types of retainers and containment protocols, and there are few studies regarding the relative effectiveness of these devices.

The 3x3 lingual retainer directly attached is the most used form of retention for the lower arch, probably due to its easy operation. The extensive literature attests to both its

3/9 popularity as the plurality in the form of construction material and collage.

Two types of fixed 3x3 retainers are often used: retainer glued only to the lingual sides of the canines and to all six anterior teeth. The type of containment most used when “gluing” the six mandibular anterior teeth is made with flexible spiral wire (twist flex). Among the advantages of the smallest bonded retainers, the less need for patient collaboration and aesthetics can be mentioned. On the other hand, these retainers have disadvantages: delay in installation and susceptibility to plaque accumulation during maintenance, which can cause irreversible periodontal problems, and the possibility of causing unexpected movements of the anterior teeth, in such a way that retreatment is eventually required. In addition to variations in wire types, diameters, and bonding, this type of containment has become the “gold standard”.

After the studies by Gottlieb et al., The frequency of use of the Hawley type retainer decreased between 1986 and 1996, while the use of transparent and fixed retainers glued from canine to canine increased. A study carried out in Australia and New Zealand revealed that the most used retainers for maxilla and mandible are glued from canine to canine, with a regular maintenance period for more than two years and also recommends permanent retention. Research in the United States of America (USA) has shown that the use of bonded retainers is employed by one third of clinicians routinely employing them in the mandibular arch. Another study in the USA revealed that the type of restraint most commonly used in the mandibular arch is the fixed lingual, indefinitely. In the Netherlands, 84% of orthodontists prefer

4/9 permanent retention and 59% defend the need to develop practical evidence-based guidance for retention procedures after orthodontic treatment.

Several factors interfere in the resistance and durability of the seals: adhesive system, size and type of load, composition, polymerization time, and, although not scientifically based, micro-infiltration can also contribute to the bond strength of composites.

Indications differ between canine-to-canine glued retainers and flexible wires. Lee considers the following guidelines for installing a canine-to-canine bonded retainer:

1. Lower incisors with severe crowding or rotation;

2. Planned change in intercanine width;

3. After advancing the lower incisors during active treatment;

4. Cases of smooth crowding without extractions;

5. After correcting the accentuated overbite.

The flexible wire retainer appears to have different indications for clinical use:

1. Closing of diastemas in the midline;

2. Multiple interdental spaces in the anterior region;

3. Cases of adults with potential for post-treatment dental migration;

4. Accidental loss of the upper incisors, requiring closure and retention of wide anterior spaces;

5. Recovery of space after extraction of the lower incisors;

5/9

6. Severe rotation of the upper incisors;

7. Canine impacted canines.

TECHNICAL STATUS

Patent document PI 0504687-4 filed on 4/1/2005 entitled palatal intraoral device for lingual posture for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea and snoring demonstrates an intraoral device that limits the position of the tongue in oral cavity, without interfering with “empty” swallowing and muscle tone in the mandibular dynamics, in addition to being fully reversible, light, comfortable and removable. This device is made from dental arch models, regardless of how it is obtained, with a thin, resistant and removable plate, located between the occlusal faces of the region corresponding to the posterior teeth, which crosswise crosses the said region, fixed using clamps, arches, etc., in natural or artificial teeth, keeping a distance of approximately 3 mm between the plate and the hard and / or soft palate and with an opening or hole in the anterior internal region of the mouth, in order to allow the passage of air . However, analyzing the object of the present patent document, the conclusion is reached that it is deficient to avoid diastema recurrence, since it is not anchored inferiorly by the canines.

The patent document MU 8602912-6 filed on 11/14/2006 entitled flexible orthodontic appliance for containment demonstrates a flexible orthodontic appliance for containment which, according to its general characteristics, has as its basic principle to provide the formation of a mobile device in own specific structure of the manufactured type, being made only in polyamide and dyes, which provides

6/9 a monoblock device, light, resistant and transparent, being practically invisible to the eye of the beholder and due to its weight and practicality, provides patients with the sensation of greater comfort. However, in the same way as the previous document, analyzing the object of the present patent document, the conclusion is reached that it is deficient to prevent diastema recurrence, since it is not anchored inferiorly by the canines.

Both documents mentioned as state of the art reveal fixed orthodontic appliances, which are coated with deficient characteristics inherent in retention.

In view of this, over time studies have been carried out to eliminate these problems and, as a result, this device has been developed that enables the design of a removable lower orthodontic retainer, through which the possibility of maintaining post-treatment stability arises, avoiding recurrences. , thus obtaining an integrated product with real possibilities for an economical industrialization, minimizing costs, assembly time and labor expenses, in addition to a precise assembly effect, with better results and a high safety standard.

It is, therefore, one of the objectives of the present patent to provide a removable lower orthodontic retainer that reduces or even eliminates the accumulation of bacterial plaque and, consequently, reduces the potential for periodontal disease and risk of caries. Another objective of the present patent is achieved with a removable lower orthodontic retainer insofar as inside the mechanical retention glued to the bottom of the tooth, an elastic ring is adapted, which connects with the “male” fitting pin, so that this withdrawal and replacement movement is easily

7/9 performed by the patient.

These and other objectives are achieved with the present provision, which consists of a removable 3x3 lower containment type, with “male-female” fitting. At the base of the “female”, mechanical retentions are made for fixation by means of bonding the lingual surface of the lower canines, with composite resin. In this sense, a “female” is glued to each canine, in the center of the crown. Inside the “female”, a hole is provided for the fitting of the “male” and, in the center of the cavity, an elastic ring is installed that fits precisely in a groove made in the “male” fitting pin. At the end of the “males” there may be metallic extensions for the retention of acrylic or fitting means for welding a thick metallic wire, which goes around the lingual surface of the lower anterior teeth. When opting for acrylic retention, a thinner metal wire must be welded to the “male” fitting terminal and immediately afterwards, the wire and terminal are covered with acrylic. The "males" may have angles in the socket arms.

To complement the present description, in order to obtain a better understanding of the characteristics of the present patent, and according to a preferred practical realization of it, the description accompanies, in the annex, a set of drawings, where in an exemplified although not limiting way the following is represented:

Figure 1 represents a side view of the “female” retention glued to the lower lingual face of a canine, with an elastic ring installed and the “male” in the position to be fitted;

Figure 2 represents a view of the “male” fitted to the elastic ring installed inside the “female”;

Figure 3 represents the top view of the ring

8/9 elastic;

Figure 4 represents the view of the containment of the present patent installed in the lower lingual part of the canines, highlighting the “males” with extensions for fitting and welding a thick metallic wire;

Figures 5 and 6 represent the views of the containment installed in the canines, highlighting that a thin metallic wire is welded at the ends in the “male” terminals, covered by acrylic;

Figures 7 and 8 represent the containment views with different inclinations for the "males" in relation to the "female".

According to the aforementioned figures, and in its details, the constructive arrangement applied in removable lower orthodontic retainer object of the present patent consists of the 3x3 type, with “male-female” type fitting, and on the “female” base (1) mechanical retentions are carried out (2) for fixation by gluing the lingual face of the lower canines (3) with composite resin, so that inside the “female” (1) a hole (4) is provided for the fitting of the “male” (5) and, in the center of the cavity, an elastic ring (6) is provided that fits precisely in a groove made in the pin (7) of the “male” (5), being that, at the end of the “Taps” (5) there may be metallic extensions (8) for the retention of acrylic (9) or fitting means for welding a thick metallic wire (10), which surrounds the lingual surface of the lower anterior teeth (11), so that when opting for acrylic retention lical (9), a thinner metallic wire (10) is welded on the “male” fitting terminal (5) and immediately after, the wire (10) and the terminal are covered with acrylic (9), being

9/9 that the “males” (5) may have angles in the arms (12) of fittings.

There is no knowledge of any removable lower orthodontic retainer that brings together, 5 all the constructive and functional characteristics mentioned above, and that directly or indirectly, is possibly as effective as the retainer object of this patent.

It will be evident to those skilled in the matter that while describing the preferred realization of the constructive provision introduced in this object, any modifications and / or alterations must be understood as within the scope of the utility model patent, perfectly fitting the criteria that the they define, that is, the combination and modification of elements already known in a new form or arrangement, involving an inventive act, resulting in a functional improvement in its use or in its manufacture.

Claims (1)

CLAIM 1 - “APPLIED CONSTRUCTIVE ARRANGEMENT IN ORTHODONTIC CONTAINMENT ”characterized by the fact that it consists of the 3x3 type, with a“ male-female ”fitting, being 5 that at the base of the “female” (1) mechanical retentions (2) are applied for fixation by means of bonding on the lingual face of the lower canines (3), with composite resin, so that inside the “female” (1) an orifice (4) is provided for the “male” fitting (5) and, in the center of the cavity, an elastic ring (6) is fitted that fits precisely into a groove made in the “male” fitting pin (7) (5), and at the end of the “taps” (5) there may be metallic extensions (8) for acrylic retention (9) or fitting means for welding a thick metallic wire (10), which contours the face lingual of the anterior lower teeth (11), so that, when opting for acrylic retention (9), a thinner metal wire (10) is welded on the “male” fitting terminal (5) and immediately after, the wire (10) and the terminal are covered with acrylic (9), and the “males” (5) may have angles in the arms (12) of fittings.