Literature DB >> 11907307

A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure.

V Dixon1, M J F Read, K D O'Brien, H V Worthington, N A Mandall.   

Abstract

AIM: To compare the rates of orthodontic space closure for: Active ligatures, polyurethane powerchain (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, RMO Europe, Parc d'Innovation, Rue Geiler de Kaysersberg, 67400 Illkirch-Graffenstaden, Strasbourg, France) and nickel titanium springs. SAMPLE: Patients entering the space closure phase of fixed orthodontic treatment attending six orthodontic providers. Twelve patients received active ligatures (48 quadrants), 10 patients received powerchain (40 quadrants) and 11 patients, nickel-titanium springs (44 quadrants).
METHOD: Patients were randomly allocated for treatment with active ligatures, powerchain or nickel titanium springs. Upper and lower study models were collected at the start of space closure (T(o)) and 4 months later (T(1)). We recorded whether the patient wore Class II or Class III elastics. Space present in all four quadrants was measured, by a calibrated examiner, using Vernier callipers at T(o) and T(1.) The rate of space closure, in millimetres per month (4 weeks) and a 4-monthly rate, was then calculated. Examiner reliability was assessed at least 2 weeks later.
RESULTS: Mean rates of space closure were 0.35 mm/month for active ligatures, 0.58 mm/month for powerchain, and 0.81 mm/month for NiTi springs. No statistically significant differences were found between any methods with the exception of NiTi springs showing more rapid space closure than active ligatures (P < 0.05). There was no effect of inter-arch elastics on rate of space closure.
CONCLUSIONS: NiTi springs gave the most rapid rate of space closure and may be considered the treatment of choice. However, powerchain provides a cheaper treatment option that is as effective. The use of inter-arch elastics does not appear to influence rate of space closure.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11907307     DOI: 10.1093/ortho/29.1.31

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orthod        ISSN: 1465-3125


  23 in total

1.  Use of the Open Coil Space Regainer for Tooth Movement Prior to Prosthodontic Treatment.

Authors:  Godwin Clovis Da Costa; Paul Chalakkal; Meena Ajay Aras; Vidya Chitre
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2015-06-01

2.  Mini-implant supported canine retraction with micro-osteoperforation: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Saritha Sivarajan; Jennifer Geraldine Doss; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Martyn T Cobourne; Mang Chek Wey
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  A comparative assessment of the amount and rate of orthodontic space closure toward a healed vs recent lower premolar extraction site.

Authors:  Elham S Abu Alhaija; Rami A Al Shayeb; Susan Al-Khateeb; Hasan O Daher; Saba O Daher
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 2.684

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

Authors:  Serene A Badran; Juman M Al-Zaben; Lina M Al-Taie; Haya Tbeishi; Mahmoud K Al-Omiri
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 2.684

5.  In-vivo force decay of nickel-titanium closed-coil springs.

Authors:  Crystal Cox; Tung Nguyen; Lorne Koroluk; Ching-Chang Ko
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets.

Authors:  Maurício Mezomo; Eduardo S de Lima; Luciane Macedo de Menezes; André Weissheimer; Susiane Allgayer
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  Forces of various nickel titanium closed coil springs.

Authors:  Anthony Louis Maganzini; Alan M Wong; Mairaj K Ahmed
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  Open-coil retraction spring.

Authors:  Pavankumar Janardan Vibhute
Journal:  Case Rep Dent       Date:  2011-09-29

Review 9.  Canine retraction: A systematic review of different methods used.

Authors:  Rohit S Kulshrestha; Ragni Tandon; Pratik Chandra
Journal:  J Orthod Sci       Date:  2015 Jan-Mar

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

Authors:  Haya A Barsoum; Hend S ElSayed; Fouad A El Sharaby; Juan Martin Palomo; Yehya A Mostafa
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.