Canine retraction and anchorage loss self-ligating versus conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Qiaozhen Zhou,Xiaofeng Chen,Kui Huang,Liu Tian,Yu Zhou,Abdul Azeem Amin Ul Haq

doi:10.1186/s12903-015-0127-2

Qiaozhen Zhou, Xiaofeng Chen + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0127-2

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of this systematic review is to identify and review the orthodontic literature with regards to assessing possible differences in canine retraction rate and the amount of antero-posterior anchorage (AP) loss during maxillary canine retraction, using conventional brackets (CBs) and self-ligating brackets (SLBs).MethodsAn electronic search without time or language restrictions was undertake in September 2014 in the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group’s Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE via OVID, EMBASE via OVID, Web of science. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. Quality assessment of the included articles was performed. Two of the authors were responsible for study selection, validity assessment and data extraction.ResultsSix studies met the inclusion criteria, including 2 randomized controlled trials and 4 control clinical studies. One was assessed as being at low risk of bias. Five trials were assessed as being at moderate risk of bias. The meta-analysis from 6 eligible studies showed that no statistically significant difference was observed between the 2 groups in the rate of canine retraction and loss of antero-posterior anchorage of the molars.ConclusionThere is some evidence from this review that both brackets showed the same rate of canine retraction and loss of antero-posterior anchorage of the molars. The results of the present systematic review should be viewed with caution due to the presence of uncontrolled interpreted factors in the included studies. Further well-designed and conducted randomized controlled trials are required, to facilitate comparisons of the results.

Highlights

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and review the orthodontic literature with regards to assessing possible differences in canine retraction rate and the amount of antero-posterior anchorage (AP) loss during maxillary canine retraction, using conventional brackets (CBs) and self-ligating brackets (SLBs)
To assume that spaces could be closed faster since it is known that friction could influence movement rates and molar anchorage loss is reduced as a result of the smaller load on the anchor unit
We initially identified a total of 789 references and 46 reports of trials as eligible according to the defined inclusion criteria for this review

Summary

Introduction

The purpose of this systematic review is to identify and review the orthodontic literature with regards to assessing possible differences in canine retraction rate and the amount of antero-posterior anchorage (AP) loss during maxillary canine retraction, using conventional brackets (CBs) and self-ligating brackets (SLBs). The claim of reduced friction with self-ligating brackets (SLBs) is often cited as a primary advantage over conventional brackets(CBs) It would be logical, to assume that spaces could be closed faster since it is known that friction could influence movement rates and molar anchorage loss is reduced as a result of the smaller load on the anchor unit. To assume that spaces could be closed faster since it is known that friction could influence movement rates and molar anchorage loss is reduced as a result of the smaller load on the anchor unit This concept is conceivable, clinical evidence is lacking to support the claim as the vast majority of the literature with contradictory findings. Even though the design of the latter study [5] allowed a more complete evaluation since full canine retraction was evaluated, measurements were taken directly in the mouth and rounded to the half millimeter, which could explain the reason of small

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion