Table 2 Summarized data of the 6 included studies
Authors, year | Study design | Participants size, gender, age | Intervention, end point | Outcome measure | Outcome and authors conclusions | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
de Almeida [8] | retrospective cohort design | Group 1:23 patients (18 females and 5 males) with an initial mean age of 15.36Â years (SD =5.59Â years) | Group 1: 23 patients, with preadjusted conventional brackets (CBs). | Maxillary molar anchorage loss; the incisor tip | There were no significant differences in the amount of anchorage loss of the maxillary first molars and incisor tip change between SLB and CB systems during space closure. group. | Canines were retracted separately by means of NiTi coil springs (150Â g of force) from the first molars |
Group 2: 15 patients (10 females and 5 males) with an initial mean age of 17.63 years (SD = 8.93 years) | Group 2: 15 patients with self-ligating brackets (SLBs). | |||||
End point: premolar space was closed | ||||||
Oz 2012 [4] | Prospective split-mouth design | 19 orthodontic patients (5 male, 14 female) with a mean age of 13.6Â years (range, 12.7 to 15.3Â years) | The canine was bonded with an SC bracket on one side and MT brackets ligated with stainlesssteel ligature wires on the other side. | distal canine movement; The angular movement of the canines and molars was also evaluated | It is suggested that the rate of canine distalization was not different between the two groups | The mini-implants that were used in this study |
End point: 8Â weeks after the start of canine distalization | ||||||
Machibya [7] | retrospective cohort | The study included 69 completed cases with mean age of 15.64 6 3.74Â years at the start of treatment. | The first group (SLB) consisted of 34 patients treated by SmartClip (3Â M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) brackets. The second group (CB) consisted of 35 patients treated by conventional preadjusted Victory series brackets (3Â M Unitek) tightly ligated with SS 0.020-inch ligatures. | Maxillary and mandibular molar anchorage loss; Incisor tipping | There were no significant differences in the amount of anchorage loss of the maxillary first molars and incisor tip change between SLB and CB systems during space closure. group. | The teeth were retracted down a 0.018-inch stainless steel archwire, using a medium Sentalloy retraction spring (150Â g). |
End point: premolar space was closed | ||||||
Burrow [5] | Prospective split-mouth design | A sample size of 43 patients (14.8 + 6.24 year,44 % Female 56 % Male) was used in this investigation (21 Damon3, 22 SmartClip, 43 conventional Victory Series). | Each patient had a 0.022-inch slot conventional bracket placed on one canine and a 0.022-inch slot Damon3 or SmartClip bracket placed on the other, with the left or right side for the self-ligating bracket chosen using a randomization sequence. | Rate of Movement | The retraction rate is faster with the conventional bracket, probably because of the narrower bracket width of the self-ligating brackets. | transpalatal arch was placed |
End point:one of the canines was in the proper position | The canines were retracted using a GAC Sentalloy retraction spring (150Â g). | |||||
Mezomo [3] | RCT | The sample comprised 15 healthy patients (10 girls and five boys), between the ages of 12 and 26Â years (mean, 18Â years | In a random, split-mouth design, self-ligating brackets (SmartClip, 3Â M-Unitek) and conventional brackets (Gemini, 3Â M-Unitek) were bonded to the right and left sides of all patients by raffle. | Average Rates of Distal Movement of Upper Canines | Distal movement of the upper canines and anchorage loss of the first molars were similar with both conventional and self-ligating brackets. Rotation of the upper canines during sliding mechanics was minimized with self-ligating brackets. | Â |
END POINT:12Â weeks (T3) of canine retraction | Total Rotation of Canines | |||||
Anchorage Loss of Upper First Molars | ||||||
Average Rates of Distal Movement of Upper Canines | ||||||
Monini [9] | RCT | The sample comprised 25 healthy patients | Through block randomization, one maxillary canine was bonded with a 0.022-inch SLB (In-Ovation R, GAC), while the other received a 0.022-inch CB (Ovation, GAC). | Canine and Molar Inclinations | Both brackets showed the same velocity of canine retraction and loss of anteroposterior anchorage of the molars. No changes were found between brackets regarding the inclination of canines and first molars. | No auxiliary devices such as transpalatal arches, headgear, or elastics were used. Nickel-titanium closed coil springs (CCS) of 100Â g (GAC) were activated for 17Â mm and secured from the hooks of first molars to the hooks of the canine brackets with ligature wires. |
End point:after total canine retraction | Time taken for total space closure | |||||
Canine Retraction Velocity |