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

Implant-supported canine retraction using different reactivation intervals of elastomeric chains: A CBCT-based split-mouth randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontists attempt to maximize treatment efficiency regarding time, tooth position and adverse effects. A new approach, not yet explored, is the activation frequency.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this split-mouth randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effect of reactivation intervals on the efficiency of tooth movement.

METHODS

Thirty eight patients having a Class I malocclusion with bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion or severe crowding, Class II with mandibular deficiency or Class III, requiring first premolar extraction and canine retraction were recruited. Elastomeric chains producing 150g were replaced every two, four, six or eight weeks. There were 36, 37, 36, and 36 quadrants randomly allocated to these groups, respectively. The canine retraction rate was the primary outcome. Canine tipping, rotation, and root resorption and pain were the secondary outcomes. Only the outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment.

RESULTS

The average total movement for the 6 months was 5.14, 5.31, 2.79 and 3.85 mm for the two-week, four-week, six-week and eight-week reactivation intervals, respectively. Root resorption was significantly higher in the two-week and four-week groups. No adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

The canine retraction rate, tipping, rotation and pain were similar in 2, 4, 6 and 8-week activation intervals groups. Longer reactivation intervals show less root resorption. The trial protocol was not pre-registered. The study was self-funded.

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.

Evaluation of maxillary canine and molar movement during the first phase of extraction space closure: a multilevel analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to analyze and compare the cusp and apex movements of the maxillary canines and first molars during canine retraction in the first step of extraction space closure, and to evaluate if these teeth follow a curvilinear (acceleration and/or deceleration) movement rate.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Twenty-five patients (23.3 ± 5.1 years of age) were enrolled. The retraction of the maxillary canines was accomplished using nickel-titanium closed coil springs (100gf) on 0.020-in stainless steel archwire. Oblique cephalograms were traced and superimposed on the anatomic best fit of the maxilla (before the retraction [T0], and after one month [T1], three [T3], five [T5] and seven [T7] months). Statistics was based in a normally distributed data. Multilevel procedures were used to derive polynomials for each of the measurements. Student's t-test and one-way repeated measures ANOVA were conducted. The level of significance of 5% was adopted.

RESULTS

Canine cusps and apexes did not follow a quadratic curve regarding horizontal movement (neither accelerate nor decelerate). Canine and molar cusps showed more horizontal movement than apexes (4.80 mm vs. 2.78 mm, and 2.64 mm vs. 2.17 mm, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Canine did not accelerate or decelerate overtime horizontally; the cusps and apexes of the canines and molars showed more horizontal movement and larger rate at the beginning of canine retraction, followed by significantly smaller and constant movement rate after the first month.

Comparison Between the Effect of Low-Energy Laser Application and Piezocision on Acceleration of Orthodontic Tooth Movement

 ABSTRACT the aim of the study was to study the effectiveness of Low Energy Laser Application or piezocisions in accelerating tooth movement, during canine retraction, compared to conventional canine retraction. Patients and Methods: A split mouth study design was done with two groups A and B. Each group confined 10 patients; in each patient one side was used as a control side and the contralateral side received either low-level laser therapy (LLLT) (group A) or piezocisions (group B). The evaluation data was gathered by Intra-oral measurements directly, every 2 weeks, over a 3 months retraction period. Results: Statistical analysis using Repeated measure ANOVA test was used to compare between more than two groups in related samples. Paired sample t-test was used to compare between two groups in related samples. Independent sample t-test was used to compare between two groups in non-related samples. direct intra-oral measurements from Group A illustrated that there was a statistically significant difference between the study and control sides (p<0.001) a total of 4.19 ± 0.5 mm canine retraction has been achieved in the low-level laser therapy (LLLT) assisted canine retraction side versus a 2.83 ± 0.2 mm total canine retraction in the control side. which was statistically significant. Group B illustrated that there was a statistically significant difference between the study and control sides ( p<0.001) that a total of 3.65± 0.4 mm canine retraction has been achieved in the piezocisions assisted canine retraction side versus a 2.79± 0.2 mm total canine retraction in the control side which was a highly statistically significant difference Conclusion: low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and Piezocisions techniques accelerated the rate of canine retraction during orthodontic treatment, with the low-level laser therapy (LLLT)  being slightly more effective.

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.

Comparison of mean canine retraction between healed and recently extracted site: A single center, randomized control trial

Objectives:

The objective of this “2-arm parallel” trial was to compare mean canine retraction into healed and recently extracted site.

Materials and Methods:

One of the sides of the maxillary dental arch of the patients having undergone orthodontic treatment at orthodontic department of a private hospital was randomly allocated to recent extraction side, while the contra-lateral side to healed extraction site. Eligibility criteria included no active local or systemic diseases including long-term medications. The main outcome was canine retraction into the extraction sites. Simple randomization technique was used allocate the right and left sides of the arch to one of the groups with allocation concealment through sequentially numbered, opaque, and sealed envelopes. Blinding was applicable for outcome assessor only. The patients were reviewed after 1 month of retraction. Data were analyzed on an intention to treat basis, using paired t-test was applied to compare the canine retraction between healed and recently extracted site (P ≤ 0.05 statistically significant).

Results:

Thirty-five patients with a mean age of 17.6 years were randomized in a 1:1 ratio for one of the sides of the arch to either recent extraction site or healed extraction site. After a month active retraction in 32 patients, the canine at recent extraction site moved 1.17 ± 0.27 mm in 1 month and 0.75 ± 0.26 mm in 1 month on the healed extraction site (P = 0.00). Two patients were lost to follow-up. No harm was observed.

Conclusion:

The results of the study indicate that the mean canine retraction was faster into the recent extraction site. The mean difference of 0.45 mm between the two sides was found be statistically significant.

Three-dimensional assessment of accelerating orthodontic tooth movement-micro-osteoperforations vs piezocision: A randomized, parallel-group and split-mouth controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of micro-osteoperforations (MOPs) vs piezocision (Piezo) in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement in adults.

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

In this randomized, single-blinded, parallel-group, split-mouth clinical trial, 24 patients aged 15-40 years were recruited.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: MOPs and Piezo groups. One side of the maxilla was allocated randomly for treatment with one of these techniques, and the other side was treated conventionally to act as a split-mouth control. The rate of canine retraction was evaluated up to 3 months by three-dimensional digital models using a conventional labial appliance. Root resorption and bone height were evaluated using cone beam computed tomography.

RESULTS

The MOPs and Piezo groups showed a significantly higher rate of tooth movement after 3 months on the experimental sides than the control sides. However, the net movements in the MOPs and Piezo groups did not reveal a higher rate of tooth movement. Similarly, the overall net movement was -0.32 ± 1.14 and -0.55 ± 0.89 mm for MOPs and Piezo, respectively (P = .606). Regarding root resorption, the overall changes in intra- or intergroup comparisons were insignificant. Decreased canine palatal bone height was reported on the experimental side of the Piezo group (P = .015) after 3 months, but the overall changes were insignificant.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect of MOPs and Piezo techniques in accelerating the orthodontic canine retraction was comparable to each other, and to the conventional methods. Neither technique caused root resorption or increased vertical bone loss.

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.

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.

Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

OBJECTIVES

To compare maxillary first molar anchorage loss between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot fixed appliance systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients requiring bilateral maxillary premolar extractions (n = 74) within a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot MBT bracket systems (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were included. Three-dimensional pre- and posttreatment digital models were landmarked and measured (R700 scanner and OrthoAnalyzer software, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Anteroposterior position of the first molars was measured using the third medial rugae point as a reference. Anchorage loss (AL) represented the subtraction of the posttreatment distance from the pretreatment distance for both anchorage loss right (ALR) and left (ALL) sides. The values were then compared using a two-way analysis of variance.

RESULTS

There were 41 and 33 cases for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot systems, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for the presence or absence of anchorage devices (P = .050). For the total sample: 0.018-inch ALR = 3.86 mm, ALL = 3.30 mm and 0.022-inch ALR = 3.73 mm, ALL = 3.47 mm (P = .970). There was also no significant difference between the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups when subjects with anchorage devices were excluded (P = .383).

CONCLUSIONS

Bracket slot size does not influence maxillary molar anchorage loss during orthodontic treatment.

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.

Therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few years, the use of self-ligating brackets in orthodontics has progressed considerably. These systems have been the subject of numerous studies with good levels of evidence making it possible to evaluate their efficacy and efficiency compared to conventional brackets. The aim of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets by means of a systematic review of the scientific literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic study was undertaken in the form of a recent search of the electronic Pubmed database, oriented by the use of several keywords combined by Boolean operators relating to the therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets through the study of tooth alignment, space closure, expansion, treatment duration and degree of discomfort. The search was limited to randomized controlled studies, and two independent readers identified studies corresponding to the selection criteria.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The chosen articles comprised 20 randomized controlled trials. The studies analyzed revealed the absence of significant differences between the two types of system on the basis of the clinical criteria adopted, thereby refuting the hypothesis of the superiority of self-ligating brackets over conventional systems.

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.

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.