Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets

Canine retraction and anchorage loss using self-ligating and conventional brackets with sliding mechanics: A split-mouth clinical study

OBJECTIVE

Appliance biocompatibility, orthodontic treatment efficiency and patient convenience are the major issues confronting contemporary orthodontic practice. Very few studies have been published till date regarding the efficiency of self-ligating brackets as against conventional brackets. Hence, the present study was planned to compare the rate of canine retraction between self-ligating and conventional brackets and to determine the amount of anchorage loss during canine retraction.

METHODS

The present clinical study was designed as a prospective, observational study comprising of 25 patients requiring first premolar extraction as a part of orthodontic treatment. Self-ligating and conventional brackets were bonded using a split-mouth study design randomly. Retraction of canines was done with 150 grams of force using Dontrix gauge with E-chains. The study was conducted in relation to upper arch only, while the rate of retraction was evaluated every 4 weeks for 3 months. Average rates of retraction in 3 months were calculated. For anchorage loss, an acrylic guide plug was used in mid-treatment cast (T0) and after 3 months of retraction (T3). The statistical analysis was done using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 17.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Independent t-test was used to compare the means of the two variables studied, while Pearson's correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between the variables studied in the groups included. P < .05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The correlation coefficient between the average rate of canine retraction with self-ligating brackets vs. conventional brackets over a period of 3 months came out to be 0.6434, while on comparing the data in terms of anchorage loss over a period of 3 months, the respective correlation coefficient value was found to be 0.6659 with the results being statistically highly significant in either case (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Self-ligating brackets showed double the amount of displacement compared to conventional brackets in some of the cases. Also, chair side time was significantly reduced with self-ligating brackets as against conventional brackets.

Effects of a ceramic active self-ligating bracket on retraction/tipping/ rotation of canine, premolar mesialization, and transverse arch dimensions: A preliminary single-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

There is no clinical study on ceramic self-ligating brackets (SLBs). Therefore, this preliminary study was conducted for the first time to address its effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This split-mouth randomized trial was performed on 32 quadrants in 16 orthodontic patients needing extraction of maxillary premolars and distalization of canines. In each blinded patient, right/left sides were randomized into control (ceramic bracket) and experimental (ceramic SLB) groups. Dental stone models were taken before canine retraction and 3 months into retraction. Models were digitized as three-dimensional models. Changes were measured on superimposed models. Groups were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test (α = 0.05, β = 0.1).

RESULTS

Both bracket types caused significant changes after 3 months in terms of all assessed clinical outcomes (P ≤ 0.002). Compared to conventional ceramic brackets (control), ceramic SLBs reduced retraction rate (P = 0.001), canine rotation (P = 0.001), canine tipping (P = 0.002), and arch expansion at the canine site (P = 0.003). However, the extents of anchorage loss (P = 0.796) and arch constriction in the premolar area (P = 0.605) were not statistically different between the bracket types.

CONCLUSION

Compared to conventional metal-lined ceramic brackets, active ceramic SLB can increase the duration of canine distalization, while reducing canine rotation and tipping (inducing more bodily movements). The loss of anchorage with ceramic SLB was similar to that of conventional ceramic bracket after 3 months of treatment (considering the lower rate of SLB canine retraction during that time). Both brackets similarly constricted the arch at the premolar site. In the canine area, they expanded the arch, with the SLB causing smaller extents of expansion.

Is there any difference between conventional, passive and active self-ligating brackets? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

To test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in treatment efficiency between therapies undertaken with conventional (CBs), passive self-ligating (PSLBs) or active self-ligating (ASLBs) brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed in 3 data bases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to January 2019. Additional references were hand searched. Search was strictly restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split-mouth design studies (SMDs). RCTs and SMDs were initially processed separately and subsequently combined in a network meta-analysis. The following variables were evaluated: treatment duration, number of visits, occlusal outcomes, alignment rate, transverse arch dimensional changes, incisor position modification, rate of space closure, anchorage loss, bond failure, root resorption, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of alignment, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal variables, quality of life.

RESULTS

On 229 papers, 30 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally included in this study. Out of 85 comparisons, 16 only revealed statistically significant differences. It was quicker to untie and ligate an 0.014 NiTi arch from/in 6 ASLBs anterior ceramic brackets compared to 6 ceramic CBs. It was also more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025 SS wire in/from PSLB's brackets compared to CB's attachments. Compared to conventional brackets, there was less maxillary incisor proclination with PSLBs in non-extraction cases. Moreover, there was less bleeding on probing 4-5 weeks after bonding with PSLBs compared to CBs brackets. The only significant difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. The network meta-analysis revealed that IMPA was greater in extractions cases with CBs compared with both ASLBs (+2,5°) and PSLBs (+1,6°).

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of the studied variables did not show any significant differences between the three types of brackets. The most significant findings were that it was quicker to insert and remove archwires from ASLBs compared to CBs, and it was more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025" stainless steel wire in/from PSLBs compared to CBs. The major difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. Most of the claims put forward by the suppliers were not substantiated by our network meta-analysis.

Which method is more effective for accelerating canine distalization short term, low-level laser therapy or piezocision? A split-mouth study

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated and compared the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and piezocision on the amount of orthodontic tooth movement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty maxillary canines from 20 patients (mean age, 16.35 ± 1.14 years) were evaluated in a split-mouth design study. Miniscrew-supported canine distalization was performed. Piezocision was applied in the right maxillary canine region, and the left maxillary canines were irradiated with a diode laser (940 nm, 5 J/cm²). LLLT was performed on day 0 and days 3, 7, 14, 21, and 28 after the start of canine distalization in the first 4‑week period. Data were evaluated at baseline (T0) and after 4 (T1), 8 (T2), and 12 (T3) weeks. The amount of canine movement was determined from three-dimensional models, and the angulation of canines and first molars was analyzed based on lateral cephalograms.

RESULTS

Intragroup and intergroup comparisons of canine distalization were performed for four different time intervals (T0-T1, T1-T2, T2-T3, T0-T3). The canine tooth movement in the T0-T1 period was significantly greater in the LLLT group compared to the piezocision group. No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups for the T1-T2, T2-T3, and T0-T3 periods. The amount of canine distalization in the T0-T1 period was significantly greater than that in the T1-T2 and T2-T3 periods in both groups. Tooth movement during the T1-T2 period was higher than that in the T2-T3 period in the LLLT group. Cephalometric evaluation revealed no statistically significant difference between the groups with respect to canine and first molar angulation.

CONCLUSION

Although laser application seems more effective during the first 4‑week period, considering the 12-week period, the effects of LLLT and piezocision on orthodontic tooth movement during canine distalization were similar.

Comparison of orthodontic space closure using micro-osteoperforation and passive self-ligating appliances or conventional fixed appliances

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) on the space closure rate using passive self-ligating or conventional brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial undertaken at the outpatient department of a dental college. There were 60 participants (30 women and 30 men) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Both the study and control groups were subjected to MOPs throughout the period of space closure. MOPs were repeated every 28 days. The experimental group (mean age 19.5 ± 1.66 years) was bonded with passive self-ligating brackets while the control group (mean age 19.9 ± 1.13 years) was bonded with conventional brackets. Both groups were examined and compared for rate of space closure. An evaluation was conducted for both groups until the entire extraction space was closed and confirmed by evaluation of a tight contact between the canine and the second premolar using a piece of dental floss.

RESULTS

Before the initiation of retraction, all initial criteria were similar between the two groups (P > .05). No difference was observed between the two groups in the rate of space closure (P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

MOP in conjunction with passive self-ligation does not increase the rate of orthodontic space closure when compared with MOP used with conventional brackets.

Distalization rate of maxillary canines in an alveolus filled with leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin in adults: A randomized controlled clinical split-mouth trial

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this study was to evaluate the distalization rate and changes in inclination of the maxillary canines in alveoli preserved with leukocyte-platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) membranes in adult patients. The null hypothesis was that there are no differences in the canine distalization movement rate between the treated and the control sides.

METHODS

A total of 21 healthy adult patients with a minimum age of 20 years (mean age, 33 ± 5.9 years) and Angle Class I or Class II Division 1 malocclusion, who had an indication of extraction of the maxillary first premolars and orthodontic distalization of the maxillary canines were included in this study. A randomized controlled clinical split-mouth trial was conducted; the experimental maxillary side was treated with L-PRF membranes, and the other side served as the control. A randomization sequence of the experimental sides among patients was generated using the random number generation function of Microsoft Excel. Neither the patients nor the operators were blinded. Fifteen days after the extractions, distalization was initiated using an elastic chain applying 150 g of force to the canines on a 0.020-in stainless steel archwire. The distalization rate was the main outcome of the study, and it was assessed monthly for 5 months through the intraoral use of a flexible ruler. The degree of inclination of the canines was the secondary outcome, and it was evaluated through cone-beam computed tomography. A Shapiro-Wilk test was performed, and a Wilcoxon signed rank test was subsequently used to compare the experimental and the control group. Spearman rank correlation coefficient was calculated to evaluate the correlation between distalization and inclination for each side.

RESULTS

Four of the subjects dropped out of the study, leaving a total of 17 patients (n = 17). The distalization rate and inclination of the canines were greater on the control side than on the side treated with L-PRF (P <0.05). A weak correlation was found between the distalization rate and inclination of the canines for both sides (control side, ρ = 0.17; experimental, ρ = 0.11). No harm was observed during the study.

CONCLUSIONS

The null hypothesis was rejected. The use of L-PRF in young adult patients decreased the rate of distalization and changes in inclination of the maxillary canines compared with the control group.

REGISTRATION

This trial was not registered.

PROTOCOL

The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

Effects of mechanical vibrations on maxillary canine retraction and perceived pain: a pilot, single-center, randomized-controlled clinical trial

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of mechanical vibratory stimulation on maxillary canine retraction and pain perception in adolescents undergoing full-fixed orthodontic treatment with extraction. A pilot randomized-controlled clinical trial was conducted in one university orthodontic clinic. Twenty-one healthy adolescents who underwent full-fixed orthodontic treatment with maxillary first-premolar extraction were recruited. Subjects were randomly assigned to the experimental group (N = 10) that used a mechanical vibration device (AcceleDent Aura, OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc.) or the control group (N = 11) that did not receive a vibration device. The evaluation timepoints were T₀ = day of initial canine retraction; T₁ = 4 weeks post-initiation; T₂ = 8 weeks post-initiation; and T₃ = 12 weeks post-initiation. Three-dimensional palatal landmark superimpositions were made to assess amount of tooth movement (mm) at each visit, monthly rate of tooth movement (mm), and perceived pain levels (VAS scores). The total amount of tooth movement was observed in the control versus experimental groups, respectively, as 1.12 ± 0.22 mm versus 1.39 ± 0.36 mm at 4 weeks (p = 0.058), 2.59 ± 0.37 mm versus 2.49 ± 0.76 mm at 8 weeks (p = 0.702), and 3.54 ± 0.23 mm versus 3.37 ± 1.37 mm at 12 weeks (p = 0.716). The rate of tooth movement was 1.21 ± 0.32 mm/month in the control and 1.12 ± 0.20 mm/month in the experimental groups, which was not statistically significant at any of the timepoints and neither was the level of pain. This study found no statistically significant differences in canine retraction and pain perception between the experimental and control groups. We propose that further optimization of accelerated tooth movement with mechanical vibration devices is necessary.

Comparison of anchorage loss between conventional and self-ligating brackets during canine retraction - A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Anchorage is defined as the resistance to unwanted tooth movement. In orthodontics, loss of anchorage can be detrimental to treatment. The proponents of orthodontic self-ligating brackets (SLB) advocate the use of extremely light forces thereby reducing anchorage burden. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare anchorage loss during canine retraction between conventional brackets (CB) and self-ligating brackets.

METHODS

An electronic search was conducted on the Cochrane database, Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed, Dental & Oral Science and CINAHL, along with handsearching Google Scholar and clinicaltrials.gov. Randomized or non-randomized clinical trials published in the English language on human subjects were included. Orthodontic patients undergoing canine retraction after premolar extraction bonded with self-ligating brackets as the intervention and conventional brackets as the control group in a split mouth design were included. Primary outcome studied was anchorage loss; secondary outcomes were retraction velocity and total amount of canine retraction. Two researchers carried out data extraction and study selection independently. The risk of bias was calculated using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias Assessment tool. The RevMan software was used for quantitative synthesis of data. Effect estimate of the primary and secondary outcomes was expressed using weighted mean difference and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity of the studies was evaluated using the Cochrane's test for heterogeneity (I² Test); subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed to investigate sources of heterogeneity among the studies.

RESULTS

Results of the literature search across all databases yielded 10,439 hits, out of which five studies were included in the qualitative synthesis that met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were randomized control trials (RCTs) where as one was a non-randomized control trial, with 100 subjects included in this systematic review. All studies used a split mouth design. Of the five studies included, only one reported significant differences between CB and SLB for anchorage loss, retraction velocity and total amount of canine retraction (P-value≤0.001). Four studies were included in the meta-analysis, which showed no difference in the amount of anchorage between self-ligating and conventional brackets (weighted mean difference - 0.22; 95% CI [-0.82, 0.38]; P=0.48). Multiple subgroup analyses further revealed there were no significant differences between the intervention and control groups for all outcomes studied.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis found insufficient evidence to suggest a significant difference in anchorage loss between the CB and SLB groups. The scarcity of current evidence dictates that further studies are needed to canonically establish the clinical superiority of one over the other.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019133217.

Comparison of frictional forces during the closure of extraction spaces in passive self-ligating brackets and conventionally ligated brackets using the finite element method

Background

This study compared the frictional force resulting from the bracket/archwire interface and the stress at the root/periodontal ligament/bone interface, between passive self-ligating brackets and conventionally ligated brackets, during the space closure stage.

Material and Methods

A cone beam tomography was taken to a female patient that required extraction of upper first premolars and passive self-ligating system; three months after its activation, a cone beam tomography was taken again. The designs of the maxillary bone and the entire system were possible through tomography images and stereomicroscopic photographs. Validation of the Finite Element Method (FEM) was achieved comparing the amount of movement seen through tomography images and the FEM. Space closure was simulated for each system through the FEM and a comparison was made between the frictional force at the bracket/archwire interface, and the root/periodontal ligament/bone interface.

Results

The most significant representation of frictional force at bracket/archwire interface and bone stress was found at the conventionally ligated system, while the passive self-ligating system accounted for the highest distribution of stress over the root.

Conclusions

The FEM is an accurate tool used to quantify frictional force and stress concentration during the orthodontic closure. The passive self-ligating system was seen less frictional during the closure state compared to conventional brackets.

Key words:Friction, orthodontic bracket, finite element analysis.

Tooth movement rate and anchorage lost during canine retraction: A maxillary and mandibular comparison

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the canine retraction rate and anchorage loss during canine retraction using self-ligating (SL) brackets and conventional (CV) brackets. Differences between maxillary and mandibular rates were computed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-five subjects requiring four first premolar extractions were enrolled in this split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Each patient had one upper canine and one lower canine bonded randomly with SL brackets and the other canines with CV brackets but never on the same side. NiTi retraction springs were used to retract canines (100 g force). Maxillary and mandibular superimpositions, using cephalometric 45° oblique radiographs at the beginning and at the end of canine retraction, were used to calculate the changes and rates during canine retraction. Paired t-tests were used to compare side and jaw effects.

RESULTS

The SL and CV brackets did not show differences related to monthly canine movement in the maxilla (0.71 mm and 0.72 mm, respectively) or in the mandible (0.54 mm and 0.60 mm, respectively). Rates of anchorage loss in the maxilla and in the mandible also did not show differences between the SL and CV brackets. Maxillary canines showed greater amount of tooth movement per month than mandibular canines (0.71 mm and 0.57 mm, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

SL brackets did not show faster canine retraction compared with CV brackets nor less anchorage loss. The maxillary canines showed a greater rate of tooth movement than the mandibular canines; however, no difference in anchorage loss between the maxillary and mandibular posterior segments during canine retraction was found.

The Effect of Using Self-ligating Brackets on Maxillary Canine Retraction: A Split-mouth Design Randomized Controlled Trial

INTRODUCTION

The results of previous studies about the efficacy of using self-ligating brackets (SLBs) in controlling canine movement during retraction are not in harmony. Therefore, the current study aimed to compare the effects of using new passive SLBs on maxillary canine retraction with sliding mechanics vs conventional ligating brackets (CLBs) tied with metal ligatures.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The sample comprised 15 adult patients (4 males, 11 females; 18-24 years) requiring bilateral extraction of maxillary first premolars. Units of randomization are the left or right maxillary canines within the same patient. The two maxillary canines in each patient were randomly assigned to one of the two groups in a simple split-mouth design. The canines in the SLBs group (n = 15) were bracketed with SLBs (Damon Q™), while the canines in the CLBs group (n = 15) were bracketed with conventional brackets (Mini Master Series). Transpalatal bars were used for anchorage. After leveling and alignment, 0.019 × 0.025" stainless steel working archwires were placed. Canines were retracted using a nickel-titanium close-coil springs with a 150 gm force. The amount and rate of maxillary canine retraction, canine rotation, and loss of anchorage were measured on study models collected at the beginning of canine retraction (T0) and 12 weeks later (T1). Differences were analyzed using paired-samples t-tests.

RESULTS

The effect differences were statistically significant (p < 0.001). Using Damon Q™ SLBs, the amount and rate of canine retraction were greater, while canine rotation and anchorage loss were less.

CONCLUSION

From a clinical perspective, extraction space closure can be accomplished more effectively using SLBs.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Self-ligating brackets gave better results compared to the CLBs in terms of rate of movement, amount of canine rotation following extraction, and anchorage loss.

A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the rate of lower canine retraction, anchorage loss, and changes on lower canines and first molars axial inclination using self-ligating and conventional brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-five adult patients with a treatment plan involving extractions of four first premolars were selected for this split-mouth trial and had either conventional or self-ligating brackets bonded to lower canines in a block randomization. Retraction was accomplished using 100-g nickel titanium closed-coil springs, which were reactivated each 4 weeks. Oblique radiographs were taken before and after total canine retraction and the cephalograms were superimposed on stable structures of the mandible. Cephalometric points were digitized twice by a single-blinded operator for error control and the average of the points were used to determine the following variables: canine cusp horizontal changes, molar cusp horizontal changes, and angulation changes in canines and molars. Paired t tests were used to analyze the blinded data for group differences.

RESULTS

All patients reached final phase without bracket debonds. No differences were found between the two groups for all variables tested. No serious harm was observed.

CONCLUSION

Both brackets showed the same rate of canine retraction and loss of anteroposterior anchorage of the molars. No changes were found between brackets regarding the inclination of canines and first molars.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Using self-ligating brackets to retract lower canines will not increase the velocity of tooth movement, does not increase anchorage, and does not decrease tipping.

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

OBJECTIVE

To compare anchorage condition in cases in which transpalatal arch was used to enhance anchorage in both continuous and segmented arch techniques.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty cases that required first premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment and transpalatal arch to enhance anchorage were included in this study. Ten cases were treated using the continuous arch technique, while the other 10 cases were treated using 0.019 × 0.025-inch TMA T-loops with posterior anchorage bend according to the Burstone and Marcotte description. Lateral cephalometric analysis of before and after canine retraction was performed using Ricketts analysis to measure the anteroposterior position of the upper first molar to the vertical line from the Pt point. Data were analyzed using an independent sample t-test.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant forward movement of the upper first molar in cases treated by continuous arch mechanics (4.5 ± 3.0 mm) compared with segmented arch mechanics (-0.7 ± 1.4 mm; P  =  .01).

CONCLUSIONS

The posterior anchorage bend to T-loop used to retract the maxillary canine can enhance anchorage during maxillary canine retraction.

Stress Distribution Evaluation of the Periodontal Ligament in the Maxillary Canine for Retraction by Different Alveolar Corticotomy Techniques: A Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis

AIM

By using the finite element method (FEM), this study aimed to evaluate the effect of different corticotomy formats on the distribution and magnitude of stress on the periodontal ligament (PDL) during retraction of the maxillary canine.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A geometric model of the left hemi-jaw was created from computed tomography scan images of a dry human skull and loads were administered during distalization movement of the canine. Three trials were performed: (1) without corticotomy, (2) box-shaped corticotomy and perforations in the cortical bone of the canine (CVC) and (3) CVC and circular-shaped corticotomy in the cortical bone of the edentulous space of the first premolar.

RESULTS

There was no difference in stress distribution among the different corticotomy formats.

CONCLUSION

Different corticotomy formats used to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement did not affect stress distribution in the PDL during canine retraction.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

From a mechanical perspective, the present study showed that the stress distribution on the PDL during canine retraction was similar in all the corticotomy formats. When using the Andrews T2 bracket, the PDL presented the highest levels of stress in the middle third of the PDL, suggesting that the force was near the center of resistance. Also, as bone weakening by corticotomies did not influence stress distribution, the surgical procedure could be simplified to a less aggressive one, focusing more on inflammatory cellular stimulation than on bone resistance. A simpler surgical act could also be performed by most orthodontists in their practices, enhancing postoperative response and reducing patient costs.

Canine retraction and anchorage loss self-ligating versus conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and review the orthodontic literature with regards to assessing possible differences in canine retraction rate and the amount of antero-posterior anchorage (AP) loss during maxillary canine retraction, using conventional brackets (CBs) and self-ligating brackets (SLBs).

Methods

An electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertake in September 2014 in the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group’s Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, Web of science. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. Quality assessment of the included articles was performed. Two of the authors were responsible for study selection, validity assessment and data extraction.

Results

Six studies met the inclusion criteria, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 control clinical studies. One was assessed as being at low risk of bias. Five trials were assessed as being at moderate risk of bias. The meta-analysis from 6 eligible studies showed that no statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the rate of canine retraction and loss of antero-posterior anchorage of the molars.

Conclusion

There is some evidence from this review that both brackets showed the same rate of canine retraction and loss of antero-posterior anchorage of the molars. The results of the present systematic review should be viewed with caution due to the presence of uncontrolled interpreted factors in the included studies. Further well-designed and conducted randomized controlled trials are required, to facilitate comparisons of the results.

Velocity of Canine Retraction in Angle Class I Treated with First Premolar Extraction: Effect of Facial Pattern

Recently, new methods have been applied to increase velocity of tooth movement. A standard mean of tooth movement velocity remains to be established, however. Moreover, to our knowledge, no studies have investigated the effect of factors affecting this velocity. The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of facial pattern on the mean velocity of canine retraction in selected cases of orthodontic treatment carried out at this hospital. A total of 112 patients with Angle Class I crowding treated with extraction of the bilateral maxillary and mandibular first premolars and a conventional edgewise bracket were selected at random. The canine retraction period was defined as that between the end of leveling and the beginning of anterior retraction, and was obtained from medical records. Calipers were used to measure how far the canine cusps moved between pre- and post-surgically on superimposed cephalometric tracings. The velocity of canine retraction was significantly slower in the maxilla of male patients with a brachyofacial pattern (p<0.01). Canine retraction is the longest stage of orthodontic treatment. Here, movement was slowest in the maxilla of male patients with a brachyofacial pattern. This indicates that treatment may take longer than average in male patients with a brachyofacial pattern, and that this should be explained prior to commencing such work.

Frictional resistance of self-ligating versus conventional brackets in different bracket-archwire-angle combinations

Objective

To compare the influence of archwire material (NiTi, beta-Ti and stainless steel) and brackets design (self-ligating and conventional) on the frictional force resistance.

Material and Methods

Two types of brackets (self-ligating brackets - Smartclip, 3M/Unitek - and conventional brackets - Gemini, 3M/Unitek) with three (0, 5, and 10 degrees) slot angulation attached with elastomeric ligatures (TP Orthodontics) were tested. All brackets were tested with archwire 0.019"x0.025" nickel-titanium, beta-titanium, and stainless steel (Unitek/3M). The mechanical testing was performed with a universal testing machine eMIC DL 10000 (eMIC Co, Brazil). The wires were pulled from the bracket slots at a cross-head speed of 3 mm/min until 2 mm displacement.

Results

Self-ligating brackets produced significantly lower friction values compared with those of conventional brackets. Frictional force resistance values were directly proportional to the increase in the bracket/ wire angulation. With regard to conventional brackets, stainless steel wires had the lowest friction force values, followed by nickel-titanium and beta-titanium ones. With regard to self-ligating brackets, the nickel-titanium wires had the lowest friction values, significantly lower than those of other materials.

Conclusion

even at different angulations, the self-ligating brackets showed significantly lower friction force values than the conventional brackets. Combined with nickel-titanium wires, the self-ligating brackets exhibit much lower friction, possibly due to the contact between nickel-titanium clips and wires of the same material.

Canine retraction and anchorage loss: self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the velocity of canine retraction, anchorage loss and changes on canine and first molar inclinations using self-ligating and conventional brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-five adults with Class I malocclusion and a treatment plan involving extractions of four first premolars were selected for this randomized split-mouth control trial. Patients had either conventional or self-ligating brackets bonded to maxillary canines randomly. Retraction was accomplished using 100-g nickel-titanium closed coil springs, which were reactivated every 4 weeks. Oblique radiographs were taken before and after canine retraction was completed, and the cephalograms were superimposed on stable structures of the maxilla. Cephalometric points were digitized twice by a blinded operator for error control, and the following landmarks were collected: canine cusp and apex horizontal changes, molar cusp and apex horizontal changes, and angulation changes in canines and molars. The blinded data, which were normally distributed, were analyzed through paired t-tests for group differences.

RESULTS

No differences were found between the two groups for all variables tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Both brackets showed the same velocity of canine retraction and loss of anteroposterior anchorage of the molars. No changes were found between brackets regarding the inclination of canines and first molars.

Does the bracket-ligature combination affect the amount of orthodontic space closure over three months? A randomized controlled trial

Objective: To investigate the effect of bracket–ligature combination on the amount of orthodontic space closure over three months.

Design: Randomized clinical trial with three parallel groups.

Setting: A hospital orthodontic department (Chesterfield Royal Hospital, UK).

Participants: Forty-five patients requiring upper first premolar extractions.

Methods: Informed consent was obtained and participants were randomly allocated into one of three groups: (1) conventional pre-adjusted edgewise brackets and elastomeric ligatures; (2) conventional pre-adjusted edgewise brackets and Super Slick® low friction elastomeric ligatures; (3) Damon 3MX® passive self-ligating brackets. Space closure was undertaken on 0·019×0·025-inch stainless steel archwires with nickel–titanium coil springs. Participants were recalled at four weekly intervals. Upper alginate impressions were taken at each visit (maximum three). The primary outcome measure was the mean amount of space closure in a 3-month period.

Results: A one-way ANOVA was undertaken [dependent variable: mean space closure (mm); independent variable: group allocation]. The amount of space closure was very similar between the three groups (1 mm per 28 days); however, there was a wide variation in the rate of space closure between individuals. The differences in the amount of space closure over three months between the three groups was very small and non-significant (P = 0·718).

Conclusion: The hypothesis that reducing friction by modifying the bracket/ligature interface increases the rate of space closure was not supported. The major determinant of orthodontic tooth movement is probably the individual patient response.

A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficiency in anchorage preservation of conventional and self-ligating brackets after the extraction of first maxillary premolars using differential moment mechanics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-eight patients requiring extraction of maxillary first premolars and maximum anchorage during space closure were evaluated based on bracket type. Group 1, comprising 23 patients, was bonded with preadjusted conventional brackets (CBs) with a slot of 0.022-inch × 0.030-inch. Group 2 comprised 15 patients who were bonded with 0.022 inch preadjusted self-ligating brackets (SLBs). Patients in both groups received a nickel titanium (NiTi) intrusion arch and a 150 g NiTi closing coil spring for separate canine retraction, followed by a continuous mushroom loop archwire to retract the incisors. Lateral cephalograms were available at the start of treatment (T1) and at the completion of space closure (T2). Statistical comparisons were performed with paired and unpaired Student's t-tests.

RESULTS

No significant differences were found between the groups in maxillary molars anchorage loss (3.87 ± 1.35 mm and 3.65 ± 1.73 mm for the CB and SLB groups, respectively). Only the mean vertical movement of the tip of the incisor was significantly different between the groups (CB  =  -0.92 ± 1.46 mm; SLB  =  0.56 ± 1.65 mm).

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in the amount of anchorage loss of the maxillary first molars between SLB and CB systems during space closure using differential moments.

Clinical efficiency of nonconventional elastomeric ligatures in the canine retraction phase of preadjusted edgewise appliance therapy: an in-vivo study

INTRODUCTION

Various ligation techniques and materials have been shown to affect the frictional resistance and the rate of tooth movement with sliding mechanics for space closure. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficiency of nonconventional elastomeric ligatures and conventional elastomeric ligatures during the canine retraction phase by comparing the rates of canine retraction.

METHODS

The 20 patients (12 female, 8 male) in our sample had individual canine retraction (in the first premolar extraction space) in each quadrant (2 maxillary, 2 mandibular) with nonconventional elastomeric ligatures and conventional elastomeric ligatures on either side of the arch. The amount of canine retraction in each interval of 1 month was determined. The rate of canine retraction was calculated and subjected to statistical calculations.

RESULTS

The rates of canine retraction were higher with the nonconventional elastomeric ligatures. However, no statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the maxillary arch. Clinically, in most instances, canine retraction was completed in the same interval in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

No significant difference in the rate of canine retraction was observed between the nonconventional elastomeric ligature and conventional elastomeric ligature groups in the maxillary arch. Clinically, the nonconventional elastomeric ligature group showed no reduction in time required for complete canine retraction in the maxillary and mandibular arches.

The clinical and laboratory effects of bracket type during canine distalization with sliding mechanics

OBJECTIVE

To compare the extent of canine movement with sliding mechanics between a self-ligating (SC) bracket and a modified twin design (MT) bracket. To test the in vitro coefficient of friction (COFs) of these two metal brackets on 0.019- × 0.025-inch, stainless-steel arch wires.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

For the clinical portion of this study, a split-mouth design was used to bond the brackets of 19 patients. Canine distalization was achieved on a 0.019- × 0.025-inch, stainless-steel arch wire with a nickel-titanium, closed-coil spring strained between a mini-screw and a canine bracket. The linear and angular measurements were performed using lateral cephalometric radiographs taken before and after canine distalization. A tribometer was also used to measure the COFs of the bracket types in vitro. For comparisons, Student's t-tests for paired and unpaired samples were used at the 95% confidence level.

RESULTS

The extent of canine movement and the changes in the canine and molar teeth angles were not significantly different between the SC and MT brackets. After 8 weeks, the mean canine movements were 1.83 and 1.89 mm in the maxilla and 1.79 mm and 1.70 mm in the mandible with the SC and MT brackets, respectively. The mean COF of the MT brackets (0.21) was significantly lower than that of the SC brackets (0.37) during in vitro testing.

CONCLUSION

It is suggested that the rate of canine distalization was not different between the two groups, although in vitro COFs of the SC bracket was higher.