Canine and molar movement, rotation and tipping by NiTi coils versus elastomeric chains in first maxillary premolar extraction orthodontic adolescents: A randomized split-mouth study.

PURPOSE

The primary objective was to compare canine and molar movement between NiTi coil and elastomeric chains. The secondary objective was to compare the side effects of these techniques (rotation and tipping).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-blind randomized split-mouth clinical trial was done prospectively. Healthy patients who needed extraction of the first maxillary premolars and did not require anchorage reinforcement techniques for orthodontic treatment were included. Following initial levelling and alignment a dental cast and panoramic radiographs were taken (pre-space closure documents) and canine retraction was done using elastomeric chains on one side and NiTi closed coil spring on the other side. After four months, the same documents were taken and movement (mm), as well as rotation (degree) and tipping (degree) of canines and first molars, were calculated by comparison of pre and post space closure documents by a blinded examiner. Data were analysed by independent samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test with a significance level of 0.0125.

RESULTS

Overall 20 patients completed the study. The average canine movement was 3.88 and 5.45mm (distal movement) in elastomeric chains and NiTi coil groups, respectively (P=0.001). For molars, the movement was 1.20 and 1.15mm (mesial movement), respectively (P=0.529). The mean rotation of the canine in elastomeric chains and NiTi coil groups were 4.50° and 7.43° (mesiobuccal rotation), respectively (P=0.006). For the molars, the mean rotation was 0.23° and 1.90° (mesiolingual rotation), respectively (P=0.307). Average tipping of the canine in elastomeric chains and NiTi coil groups were 4.52° and 7.55° (distal tipping), respectively (P=0.011). For the molars, the numbers were 1.45° and 4.80° (mesial tipping), respectively (P=0.028).

CONCLUSION

Canine retraction by NiTi coil springs is faster compared to elastomeric powerchains with the cost of more canine tipping and rotation and more molar tipping. No significant difference was found in molar movement, rotation and tipping between the two techniques.