RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

ANNEXURE II

PROFORMA FOR REGISTRATION OF SUBJECTS FOR DISSERTATION

1 / NAME OF THE CANDIDATE
AND ADDRESS / DR. MANJUNATH A MALAGAN
POSTGRADUATE
DEPARTMENT OF ORTHODONTICS
COORG INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES,
K.K. CAMPUS
MAGGULA
VIRAJPET-571 218
COORG DISTRICT
KARNATAKA.
2. / NAME OF THE INSTITUTION / COORG INSTITUTE OF DENTAL SCIENCES,
VIRAJPET-571 218
3. / COURSE OF THE STUDY & SUBJECT / Master of Dental Surgery, Orthodontics
4. / DATE OF ADMISSION TO THE COURSE / 21 April 2007
5. / TITLE OF THE TOPIC
A Comparison of the efficacy of four different types of orthodontic separators.
6. / BRIEF RESUME OF THE INTENDED WORK.
6.1 NEED FOR THE STUDY
Tight interproximal contacts make it impossible to properly seat a band, so separation of teeth with various separators to create interproximal space is the first step of fixed appliance therapy. Insufficient separation causes pain and discomfort to the patient during banding procedures apart from causing improper seating of bands. The ideal separator needs to provide rapid and good separation and should not get lost while chewing food. Though many different types of separators are available commercially, a thorough investigation is required to assess the efficiency of different separators.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the rapidity and amount of separation of four different types of separators (i.e.elastomeric separators, dumbbell separators, kesling springs and niti springs) and also the percentage of loss of these separators.
6.2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The literature suggests that there is need for some device to separate the teeth before banding. 1,2,3
Kesling separators have been shown to produce separation between teeth for band placement. 1
A study was undertaken to evaluate the separation effect from three types of separators using TP springs, Niti springs and elastomeric separators, and elastomeric separator were found to be superior.4
The study was conducted to determine the difference in separation effect between TP separating springs and elastomeric separators. However, the separation effect of the two types of separators was considered clinically equivalent.5
A study was performed to compare four types of separators using brass ligature wire, separating spring, latex elastics and plastic elastics and established the amount of separation from each type. The result of the study revealed that plastic separators gave the best performance.6
6.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1) To know the amount of separation gained by four types of separators (i.e. elastomeric, dumbbell, kesling and Niti springs) at various intervals of time.
2) To know which of these separators separate adjacent teeth faster and also the percentage of loss of these separators.
7. / MATERIALS AND METHOD
7.1 SOURCE OF DATA
Data would be obtained from volunteers, from Coorg Institute of Dental Sciences.
7.2  METHOD OF COLLECTION OF DATA
A sample of 50 adult volunteers would be selected with the following criteria:
1) Age 16-23 years
2) No previous history of orthodontic treatment. No caries or restorations. And no evidence of periodontal or gingival problems.
3) No previous history of extraction and Good interproximal tooth contacts at the site of separator placement.
·  “Leaf gauge” is to be employed to measure the separation effect after 1st day, 2nd day and 3rd day respectively.
·  ANOVA and TUKEYS test to be employed to compare mean values, range and standard deviation of four parameters for the entire group.
·  DUNNETS test or BONFERRONI test to be employed to compare mean values, range and standard deviation for the entire group after 1st day, 2nd day and 3rd day.
7.3  Does the study require any investigation or investigations or interventions to be
Conducted on patients or other humans & animals, If so, please describe briefly.
Yes, placement of four different types of separators on each subject required.
7.4 Has the ethical clearance been obtained from your institution in case of 7.3?
Yes
8. / LIST OF REFERENCE
1)  Begg .P.R: Begg orthodontic and technique, Philadelphia, W.B Sounder’s company,
1965; 100-101.
2)  Proffit .R.W; Fields.W.H; Sarver.M.D: Cotemporary orthodontics, Fourth edition,
Mosby company, 2007; 412-413.
3)  Moyers .R.E: Handbook of orthodontics, Fourth edition, Year book medical publishers
1988; 515-516.
4)  Steven cureton, DMD, MS; Ronald.W.Bice. Comparison of three types of separators in
Adult patients. JCO, March 1997; 172-177.
5)  Lars Bondemark, DDS; separation effect and perception of pain and discomfort from
two types of orthodontic separators. World journal of orthodontics.
2004; 5 : 172-176.
6)  Hoffmann W.E; A study of four types of separators. AJO,1972; 62: 67-73.
9. / Signature of the candidate
10. / Remarks of the guide
11. / Name & Designation of (in block letters)
11.1 Guide
11.2 Signature
11.3 Co- guide (if any)
11.4 Signature
11.5 Head of the Department
11.6 Signature
12. / 12.1 Remarks of the chairman & Principal
12.2 Signature