Noraina Hafizan Norman1,2, Helen Worthington3, Stephen Mark Chadwick4. 1. a Orthodontic Department , University of Manchester Dental Hospital , Higher Cambridge Street, M15 6JH , Manchester , UK. 2. b Faculty of Dentistry , Universiti Teknologi MARA , Malaysia. 3. c University of Manchester , Higher Cambridge Street, M15 6JH , Manchester , UK. 4. d Orthodontic Department , Countess of Chester Hospital, Chester , UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of nickel titanium (NiTi) versus stainless steel (SS) springs during orthodontic space closure. DESIGN: Two-centre parallel group randomized clinical trial. SETTING:Orthodontic Department University of Manchester Dental Hospital and Orthodontic Department Countess of Chester Hospital, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty orthodontic patients requiring fixed appliance treatment were enrolled, each being randomly allocated into either NiTi (n = 19) or SS groups (n = 21). Study models were constructed at the start of the space closure phase (T0) and following the completion of space closure (T1). The rate of space closure achieved for each patient was calculated by taking an average measurement from the tip of the canine to the mesiobuccal groove on the first permanent molar of each quadrant. RESULTS: The study was terminated early due to time constraints. Only 30 patients completed, 15 in each study group. There was no statistically significant difference between the amounts of space closed (mean difference 0.17 mm (95%CI -0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.76)). The mean rate of space closure for NiTi coil springs was 0.58 mm/4 weeks (SD 0.24) and 0.85 mm/4 weeks (SD 0.36) for the stainless steel springs. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.024), in favour of the stainless steel springs, when the mean values per patient were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that stainless steel springs are clinically effective; these springs produce as much space closure as their more expensive rivals, the NiTi springs.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical performance of nickel titanium (NiTi) versus stainless steel (SS) springs during orthodontic space closure. DESIGN: Two-centre parallel group randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Orthodontic Department University of Manchester Dental Hospital and Orthodontic Department Countess of Chester Hospital, United Kingdom. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Forty orthodontic patients requiring fixed appliance treatment were enrolled, each being randomly allocated into either NiTi (n = 19) or SS groups (n = 21). Study models were constructed at the start of the space closure phase (T0) and following the completion of space closure (T1). The rate of space closure achieved for each patient was calculated by taking an average measurement from the tip of the canine to the mesiobuccal groove on the first permanent molar of each quadrant. RESULTS: The study was terminated early due to time constraints. Only 30 patients completed, 15 in each study group. There was no statistically significant difference between the amounts of space closed (mean difference 0.17 mm (95%CI -0.99 to 1.34; P = 0.76)). The mean rate of space closure for NiTi coil springs was 0.58 mm/4 weeks (SD 0.24) and 0.85 mm/4 weeks (SD 0.36) for the stainless steel springs. There was a statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.024), in favour of the stainless steel springs, when the mean values per patient were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Our study shows that stainless steel springs are clinically effective; these springs produce as much space closure as their more expensive rivals, the NiTi springs.
Entities:
Keywords:
Nickel titanium spring; orthodontic space closure; rate; stainless steel spring