The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

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

Mohammad Y Hajeer, Siba E Hassan, Osama H Alali, Ayham S Kaddah

Citation Information : Hajeer MY, Hassan SE, Alali OH, Kaddah AS. The Effect of Using Self-ligating Brackets on Maxillary Canine Retraction: A Split-mouth Design Randomized Controlled Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (6):496-503.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1879

Published Online: 01-06-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

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 × 0.025ʺ 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.

How to cite this article

Hassan SE, Hajeer MY, Alali OH, Kaddah AS. The Effect of Using Self-ligating Brackets on Maxillary Canine Retraction: A Split-mouth Design Randomized Controlled Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(6):496-503.


PDF Share
  1. A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod 1980 Dec;78:593-609.
  2. The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003 Apr;123(4):416-422.
  3. Comparison of frictional forces during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of self-ligating brackets and archwires with a custom-designed typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 Feb;133(2):187.e15-187.e24.
  4. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Jun;137(6):726.e1-726.e18.
  5. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007 Aug;132(2):223-225.
  6. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets: a randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2011 Mar;81:292-297.
  7. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod 2010;80:626-633.
  8. A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure. J Orthod 2002 Mar;29(1):31-36.
  9. A clinical comparison of the rate of maxillary canine retraction into healed and recent extraction sites – a pilot study. Eur J Orthod 1997 Dec;19(6):711-719.
  10. A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989 Feb;95(2):99-106.
  11. Reliability of measurements from photocopies of study models. J Clin Orthod 1992 Oct;26(10):648-650.
  12. The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Semin Orthod 2008 Mar;14(1):5-18.
  13. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004 Jun;26(3):327-332.
  14. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007 Aug;132(2):216-222.
  15. Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003 Oct;124(4):395-402.
  16. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:283-291.
  17. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994 Nov;106(5):472-480.
  18. Split-mouth designs in orthodontics: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trials. Eur J Orthod 2013 Dec;35(6):783-789.
  19. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 Jul;134(1):30-35.
  20. Plicae palatinae transversae and papilla incisiva in man; a morphologic and genetic study. Acta Odontol Scand 1955;13(Suppl 18):5-137.
  21. The effects of tooth movement on the palatine rugae. J Prosthet Dent 1967 Dec;18(6):536-542.
  22. The use of palatal rugae for the assessment of anteroposterior tooth movements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001 May;119(5):482-488.
  23. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007 Aug;132(2):208-215.
  24. The effects of friction and flexural rigidity of the archwire on canine movement in sliding mechanics: a numerical simulation with a 3-dimensional finite element method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006 Sep;130(3):275.e1-275.e10.
  25. Duration and anchorage management of canine retraction with bodily versus tipping mechanics. Angle Orthod 2008 Jan;78(1):95-100.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.