<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec>
<h3>Objectives</h3>
<p>To compare the rates of maxillary canine retraction and molar anchorage loss when using either NiTi springs or elastomeric chains delivering a known force with sliding edgewise mechanics.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Methods</h3>
<p>Twelve patients who required maxillary canine retraction into first premolar extraction sites as part of their orthodontic treatment were selected. In a split-mouth design, these patients received precalibrated NiTi springs (12 quadrants) and premeasured elastomeric chains (12 quadrants), all delivering initial forces of approximately 200 g and being reactivated at 28 day intervals. Space closure and forward movement of the maxillary first molars were evaluated using maxillary impressions, which were taken before the start of canine retraction and then at 28 day intervals until canine retraction was almost complete.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>Statistical analysis revealed that the mean rate of space closure with NiTi springs (1.85 mm/month) was only 0.17 mm/month greater (<italic>p</italic> = 0.011) than that produced with the elastomeric chains (1.68 mm/month). The mean rates of anchorage loss for the NiTi springs and elastomeric chain were 0.46 mm/month and 0.45 mm/month respectively. This difference was not statistically significant. These amounts of forward molar movement were calculated to be between one quarter and one third of the average space closure per month, even in the presence of a fixed transpalatal arch.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>The results indicate that the rates of space closure and molar anchorage loss using either NiTi springs or elastomeric chains, if reactivated every 28 days, are likely to be similar.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Objectives
To compare the rates of maxillary canine retraction and molar anchorage loss when using either NiTi springs or elastomeric chains delivering a known force with sliding edgewise mechanics.


Methods
Twelve patients who required maxillary canine retraction into first premolar extraction sites as part of their orthodontic treatment were selected. In a split-mouth design, these patients received precalibrated NiTi springs (12 quadrants) and premeasured elastomeric chains (12 quadrants), all delivering initial forces of approximately 200 g and being reactivated at 28 day intervals. Space closure and forward movement of the maxillary first molars were evaluated using maxillary impressions, which were taken before the start of canine retraction and then at 28 day intervals until canine retraction was almost complete.


Results
Statistical analysis revealed that the mean rate of space closure with NiTi springs (1.85 mm/month) was only 0.17 mm/month greater (p = 0.011) than that produced with the elastomeric chains (1.68 mm/month). The mean rates of anchorage loss for the NiTi springs and elastomeric chain were 0.46 mm/month and 0.45 mm/month respectively. This difference was not statistically significant. These amounts of forward molar movement were calculated to be between one quarter and one third of the average space closure per month, even in the presence of a fixed transpalatal arch.


Conclusion
The results indicate that the rates of space closure and molar anchorage loss using either NiTi springs or elastomeric chains, if reactivated every 28 days, are likely to be similar.

A clinical comparison between nickel titanium springs and elastomeric chains

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"A clinical comparison between nickel titanium springs and elastomeric chains"}

Objectives
To compare the rates of maxillary canine retraction and molar anchorage loss when using either NiTi springs or elastomeric chains delivering a known...

A clinical comparison between nickel titanium springs and elastomeric chains

Published Online: Dec 13, 2023

Page range: 39 - 46

Received: Oct 01, 2005

Accepted: Dec 01, 2005

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2006-0005

© 2006 Jim Bokas et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.