Comprehensive comparison of canine retraction using NiTi closed coil springs vs elastomeric chains

Methods of measuring distal canine movement and rotation- A review

This article provides an overview of the various methods for measuring distal canine movement and rotation during retraction. Various databases, including PubMed Central, Science Direct, Wiley Online Library, the Cochrane Library, Textbooks, Google Scholar, and Research Gate, and a manual search up until September 2022, were used to search for various methods of measuring distal canine movement and rotation during retraction. After excluding the duplicate articles, the papers explaining these techniques were included. Four significant techniques were identified. The digital method with 3D superimposition is the safest, most accurate, and most accessible of the methods reviewed.

Comparison of retraction efficacy of titanium-molybdenum and titanium-niobium alloy wires – A prospective split-mouth study

Objectives:

The study aimed to compare the efficacy of Titanium-Molybdenum (Ti-Mo) and Titanium-Niobium (Ti-Nb) alloy wires as retraction springs, by comparing: The amount and rate of canine retraction, the degree of canine rotation, the change in axial inclination of canines, and the associated anchorage loss.

Material and Methods:

All 17 participants (age: 18–25 years) to be treated with the first premolar extraction approach by canine retraction were assigned Ti-Mo and Ti-Nb alloy T-loop springs to either of the upper quadrants randomly. Digital intraoral 3-D scans and panoramic radiographs orthopantomagram (OPG) were taken before (T0) and after (T1) the study period (4 months). 3-D superimposition was performed and using the digital models and OPG, changes in canine position, angulation, and anchorage loss were compared between the two groups.

Results:

There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups for all the parameters pertaining to maxillary canine retraction, that is, canine retraction (P = 0.72), change in axial inclination of canines (P = 0.71), rotation of canines (P = 0.74), and anchorage loss (P = 0.13) as well as extraction space closure (P = 0.74).

Conclusion:

Ti-Nb and Ti-Mo alloy wires show a similar potency for use in retraction mechanics for orthodontic space closure.

Comparing patient-centered outcomes and efficiency of space closure between nickel-titanium closed-coil springs and elastomeric power chains during orthodontic treatment

OBJECTIVES

To compare patient-reported pain, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing between nickel-titanium closed-coil springs (CS) and elastomeric power chains (PC) when used for space closure. The secondary aims were to compare plaque control and efficiency of space closure between these two force delivery systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 48 patients who required extractions of upper first premolars and distal movement of upper canines had the CS randomly allocated to either the right or left side. Blinding was applied at data collection and analysis. Primary outcomes were pain intensity measured on visual analog scale, pain onset and duration, discomfort, and difficulty in maintaining proper brushing from the start of canine retraction at baseline and at 6 and 12 weeks thereafter. Secondary outcomes were plaque scores and the rate of space closure.

RESULTS

No significant differences in mean pain scores, pain onset, and duration at different time intervals between CS and PC were observed. The CS side was significantly less comfortable than the PC (P < .0001) and more difficult to keep clean (P = .008). No significant differences in plaque scores were observed between CS and PC groups at any time interval. CS produced a faster rate of space closure than did PC (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

CS were less tolerated than PC by patients but produced an average of 0.5 mm more movement than did the PC during the 12-week study period.

Canine and molar movement, rotation and tipping by NiTi coils versus elastomeric chains in first maxillary premolar extraction orthodontic adolescents: A randomized split-mouth study

PURPOSE

The primary objective was to compare canine and molar movement between NiTi coil and elastomeric chains. The secondary objective was to compare the side effects of these techniques (rotation and tipping).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-blind randomized split-mouth clinical trial was done prospectively. Healthy patients who needed extraction of the first maxillary premolars and did not require anchorage reinforcement techniques for orthodontic treatment were included. Following initial levelling and alignment a dental cast and panoramic radiographs were taken (pre-space closure documents) and canine retraction was done using elastomeric chains on one side and NiTi closed coil spring on the other side. After four months, the same documents were taken and movement (mm), as well as rotation (degree) and tipping (degree) of canines and first molars, were calculated by comparison of pre and post space closure documents by a blinded examiner. Data were analysed by independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test with a significance level of 0.0125.

RESULTS

Overall 20 patients completed the study. The average canine movement was 3.88 and 5.45mm (distal movement) in elastomeric chains and NiTi coil groups, respectively (P=0.001). For molars, the movement was 1.20 and 1.15mm (mesial movement), respectively (P=0.529). The mean rotation of the canine in elastomeric chains and NiTi coil groups were 4.50° and 7.43° (mesiobuccal rotation), respectively (P=0.006). For the molars, the mean rotation was 0.23° and 1.90° (mesiolingual rotation), respectively (P=0.307). Average tipping of the canine in elastomeric chains and NiTi coil groups were 4.52° and 7.55° (distal tipping), respectively (P=0.011). For the molars, the numbers were 1.45° and 4.80° (mesial tipping), respectively (P=0.028).

CONCLUSION

Canine retraction by NiTi coil springs is faster compared to elastomeric powerchains with the cost of more canine tipping and rotation and more molar tipping. No significant difference was found in molar movement, rotation and tipping between the two techniques.