Objective: To evaluate the velocity of canine retraction, anchorage loss and changes on canine and first molar inclinations using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five adults with Class I malocclusion and a treatment plan involving extractions of four first premolars were selected for this randomized split-mouth control trial. Patients had either conventional or self-ligating brackets bonded to maxillary canines randomly. Retraction was accomplished using 100-g nickel-titanium closed coil springs, which were reactivated every 4 weeks. Oblique radiographs were taken before and after canine retraction was completed, and the cephalograms were superimposed on stable structures of the maxilla. Cephalometric points were digitized twice by a blinded operator for error control, and the following landmarks were collected: canine cusp and apex horizontal changes, molar cusp and apex horizontal changes, and angulation changes in canines and molars. The blinded data, which were normally distributed, were analyzed through paired t-tests for group differences. Results: No differences were found between the two groups for all variables tested. Conclusions: 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. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:846-852.)

No abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this two-arm parallel trial was to compare en masse (ER) and two-step retraction (TSR) during space closure. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight adult patients with bimaxillary protrusion who were planned for treatment with extraction of four first premolars were enrolled. All patients were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either the ER (n = 24) group or the TSR (n = 24) group. The main outcome was the amount of posterior anchorage loss in the molars and the retraction of the incisors between ER and TSR; the difference in incisor and molar inclination was a secondary outcome. Lateral cephalometric radiographs and oblique cephalometric radiographs at 45° were taken before retraction (T1) and after space closure (T2). Cephalograms were digitized and superimposed on the anatomic best fit of the maxilla and mandible by one operator who was blinded to the treatment group. Results: Neither incisor nor molar crown movements showed any significant differences between the ER and TSR. There were no significant differences in the tipping of incisors and molars between the two groups. Conclusions: No significant differences existed in the amount of retraction of incisors and anchorage loss of molars between ER and TSR. Changes in incisor and molar tipping were similar, with the crowns showing more movement than the apex.

Rapid palatal expansion: a comparison of two appliancesAbstract: This study analyzed occlusal radiographs to compare the transverse changes produced in patients treated with rapid maxillary expansion using two types of appliances. The sample consisted of 31 children aged 7 to 10.6 years, of both genders, with posterior cross-bite. Fifteen children were treated with a tooth-borne expander and 16 were treated with a tooth-tissue-borne expander. Occlusal radiographs obtained at treatment onset and at the end of the retention period were digitized. The following variables were measured: intermolar distance (IMD), interapical distance (IApD), interbase distance (IBaD) and interarm distance (IArD). The results revealed increases in all measurements in both groups after rapid maxillary expansion. Comparison between groups revealed that the increases were greater in patients treated with the tooth-borne expander, except for the IArD measurement, which presented the same increase in both groups. Even though the IMD measurements differed between expanders, they were proportional to the activation of the appliances (IBaD). The increase in the IApD measurement was proportionally greater in the group treated with the tooth-borne expander (0.7:1.0) than in that treated with the tooth-tissue-borne expander (0.4:1.0). It was concluded that both appliances had similar effects, although the tooth-tissue-borne expander produced a lesser opening at the apical region of the incisors.