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

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 × 0.025" 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.