Examination of postextraction space closure speed using elastic chains and NiTi closed coil springs

Abstract

Summary Introduction In everyday clinical practice, we often encounter a lack of space for placing all the teeth present into dental arch; therefore it is often recommended to extract teeth within orthodontic treatment. In clinical practice, the most commonly used methods of closing space after are elastic chains and NiTi closed spiral springs. The aim of this paper was to compare postextraction space closure speed using two different sliding mechanisms, NiTi closed coil springs and elastic chains within treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances. Material and Method The total sample in this study consisted of 46 postexstraction spaces in 23 patients indicated for the extraction of first premolars using treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances. Two sliding mechanisms, NiTi closed coil spring and elastic chains were applied to postextraction space closure. Postextraction spaces were monitored for 4 months with appointments every 4 weeks. During appointments mechanisms were activated and digital caliper was used to measure the width of the postextraction space. Results The results showed that NiTi closed coil springs method achieved greater reduction in postexstraction space (3.94 mm) while with elastic chain method the closure of 3.10 mm was achieved. The total difference between these two methods in the observed period was 0.84mm and no statistically significant difference was found (p> 0.05). The lowest value for NiTi closed springs was 2.19 mm, while for the elastic chain it was 1.29 mm. The best postextraction space closure was 5.70 mm and it was completed using NiTi closed springs while for elastic chain the best value was 4.80 mm. Conclusion: NiTi closed coil springs lead to faster closure of postextraction spaces in relation to elastic chain. Since this difference is minimal, in practice, both methods can be used equally.

Comprehensive comparison of canine retraction using NiTi closed coil springs vs elastomeric chains:

“…Various outcomes including the total distance of retraction, the percent of closed extraction spaces within a given period of time, as well as weekly, monthly, and overall retraction rate have been measured. The mean differences for the monthly rates reported by Nightingale and Jones, 8 Bokas and Woods, 15 Khanmasjedi et al, 16 Talwar and Bhat, 17 Davidovic et al, 23 and Chaudhari and Tarvade 19 were 0.05, 0.17, 0.23, 0.28, 0.21, and 0.25 mm, respectively.…”

“…Coil springs and elastomeric chains have been used in a multitude of studies. Yet, only eight primary studies 8,13,[15][16][17][18][19]23 compared the efficacy of coil springs and elastomeric chains for canine retraction and space closure. Various outcomes including the total distance of retraction, the percent of closed extraction spaces within a given period of time, as well as weekly, monthly, and overall retraction rate have been measured.…”

Preliminary feasibility torque mechanical evaluation for 3D printed orthodontic springs with different parameters: in vitro study

“…For this reason, the absolute data for torque and the obtained values can be compared only inside the same study. In a study conducted by Davidović et al [ 21 ], closed coil springs made of nickel titanium material were compared to elastic chains. A similar approach for three dimensionally printed springs could be undertaken to determine their efficiency when paired against other materials on the orthodontic field.…”

Torque Mechanical Evaluation for 3D Printed Orthodontic Springs with Different Parameters: Invitro Study

“…For this reason, the absolute data for torque and the obtained values can be compared only inside the same study. In a study conducted by Davidović et al (18) , closed coil springs made of nickel titanium material were compared to elastic chains. A similar approach for three dimensionally printed springs could be undertaken to determine their efficiency when paired against other materials on the orthodontic field.…”