|
|
||||||||
Features Section |
Kilkenny, Rep. of Ireland
Dear Editor
I wish to thank Dr Weinberger for his comments and astute observations.
Dr Weinberger makes essentially two points. His first point is a specific comment on the treatment mechanics of the Tip-Edge Plus appliance system. He is correct in his statement that the auxiliary wire during stage three is better placed above the occlusal tube to ensure uprighting in second premolar extraction cases. I stated such in the article: In the lower arch this [the auxiliary wire] was ligated over the buccal attachments to ensure full uprighting of the lower first premolars. This was done once the auxiliary wire had progressed for ease of use. Although it has been reported that 0.014 NiTi is a sufficiently large final auxillary wire,1
in this case we progressed to 0.018 NiTi to ensure full torque expression anteriorly.
The second point is a generic one warning against cookbook orthodontics. This case echoes this point entirely, with a choice functional appliance and indeed fixed appliance system, customized for the individual needs of this patient.
Reference
1 Parkhouse RC. Current products and practice: Tip-Edge Plus. J Orthod 2007; 34(1): 59–68.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |