Canine retraction: A systematic review of different methods used

Rohit S Kulshrestha, Ragni Tandon, Pratik Chandra, Rohit S Kulshrestha, Ragni Tandon, Pratik Chandra

Abstract

Canine retraction is a very important step in treatment of patients with crowding, or first premolar extraction cases. In severe crowding cases until, the canines have been distilized to relive the crowding, space to correctly align the incisors will not be available. Correct positioning of the canines after retraction is of great importance for the function, stability, and esthetics. The aim of this systematic review was to examine, in an evidence-based way, which kinds of canine retraction methods/techniques are most effective and which have the least side effects. A literature survey was performed by applying the Medline Database (Entrez PubMed) and Science Direct database covering the period from 1985 to 2014, to find out efficient ways to accomplish canine retraction. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective and retrospective controlled studies, and clinical trials were included. Two reviewers selected and extracted the data independently and assessed the quality of the retrieved studies. The search strategy resulted in 324 articles, of which 22 met the inclusion criteria. Due to the vast heterogeneity in study methods, the scientific evidence was too weak to evaluate retraction efficiency during space closure. The data so far reviewed proved that elastomeric power chains, elastic threads, magnets, NiTi coil springs, corticotomies, distraction osteogenesis, and laser therapy, all are able to provide optimum rate of tooth movements. All the methods were nearly similar to each other for retraction of canines Most of the techniques lead to anchorage loss in various amounts depending on the methods used. Most of the studies had serious problems with small sample size, confounding factors, lack of method error analysis, and no blinding in measurements. To obtain reliable scientific evidence, controlled RCT's with sufficient sample sizes are needed to determine which method/technique is the most effective in the respective retraction situation. Further studies should also consider patient acceptance and cost analysis as well as implants and minor surgeries for canine retraction.

Keywords: Canine retraction; extractions; space closure.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of data search according to PRISMA

References

    1. Vaden JL, Dale JG, Klontz HA. The tweed-merrifield edgewise appliance: Philosophy, diagnosis, and treatment. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, editors. Orthodontics: Current Principle Sand Techniques. 4th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2005. pp. 675–715.
    1. Hans MG, Groisser G, Damon C, Amberman D, Nelson S, Palomo JM. Cephalometric changes in overbite and vertical facial height after removal of 4 first molars or first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:183–8.
    1. Jan H. Restore a wide radiant smile without dental extractions. Pak Oral Dent J. 2005;25:65–8.
    1. Profit WR, Fields HW, Jr, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 4th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2007.
    1. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Travesi HJ. Systemized Orthodontic Treatment Mechanics. Edinburgh: Mosby; 2001.
    1. Stalpers MJ, Booij JW, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Katsaros C. Extraction of maxillary first permanent molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:316–23.
    1. Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Isiksal E. Relapse of anterior crowding in patients treated with extraction and nonextraction of premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;129:775–84.
    1. Chaushu G, Becker A, Zeltser R, Vasker N, Branski S, Chaushu S. Patients' perceptions of recovery after routine extraction of healthy premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131:170–5.
    1. Janson G, Busato MC, Henriques JF, de Freitas MR, de Freitas LM. Alignment stability in Class II malocclusion treated with 2-and 4-premolar extraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130:189–95.
    1. Hayashi K, Uechi J, Murata M, Mizoguchi I. Comparison of maxillary canine retraction with sliding mechanics and a retraction spring: A three-dimensional analysis based on a midpalatal orthodontic implant. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:585–9.
    1. Nishio C, da Motta AF, Elias CN, Mucha JN. In vitro evaluation of frictional forces between archwires and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125:56–64.
    1. Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. 2nd ed. University of York: York Publishing Services Ltd; 2001. National Health Service (NHS) Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Report Number 4.
    1. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159–74.
    1. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. 2009;62:e1-34. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi. 2009.06.006.
    1. Huffman DJ, Way DC. A clinical evaluation of tooth movement along arch wires of two different sizes. Am J Orthod. 1986;83:453–9.
    1. Sonis AL, Van der Plas E, Gianelly A. A comparison of elastomeric auxiliaries versus elastic thread on premolar extraction site closure: An in vivo study. Am J Orthod. 1986;89:73–8.
    1. Ziegler P, Ingervall B. A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95:99–106.
    1. Samuels RH, Rudge SJ, Mair LH. A comparison of the rate of space closure using a nickel-titanium spring and an elastic module: A clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;103:464–7.
    1. Lotzof LP, Fine HA, Cisneros GJ. Canine retraction: A comparison of two preadjusted bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110:191–6.
    1. Daskalogiannakis J, McLachlan KR. Canine retraction with rare earth magnets: An investigation into the validity of the constant force hypothesis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;109:489–95.
    1. Samuels RH, Rudge SJ, Mair LH. A clinical study of space closure with nickel-titanium closed coil springs and an elastic module. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114:73–9.
    1. Dixon V, Read MJ, O'Brien KD, Worthington HV, Mandall NA. A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure. J Orthod. 2002;29:31–6.
    1. Nightingale C, Jones SP. A clinical investigation of force delivery systems for orthodontic space closure. J Orthod. 2003;30:229–36.
    1. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Ricciardi A, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:395–402.
    1. Bokas J, Woods M. A clinical comparison between nickel titanium springs and elastomeric chains. Aust Orthod J. 2006;22:39–46.
    1. Deguchi T, Imai M, Sugawara Y, Ando R, Kushima K, Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical evaluation of a low-friction attachment device during canine retraction. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:968–72.
    1. Sukurica Y, Karaman A, Gürel HG, Dolanmaz D. Rapid canine distalization through segmental alveolar distraction osteogenesis. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:226–36.
    1. Shpack N, Davidovitch M, Sarne O, Panayi N, Vardimon AD. Duration and anchorage management of canine retraction with bodily versus tipping mechanics. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:95–100.
    1. Thiruvenkatachari B, Ammayappan P, Kandaswamy R. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:30–5.
    1. Youssef M, Ashkar S, Hamade E, Gutknecht N, Lampert F, Mir M. The effect of low-level laser therapy during orthodontic movement: A preliminary study. Lasers Med Sci. 2008;23:27–33.
    1. Martins RP, Buschang PH, Gandini LG, Jr, Rossouw PE. Changes over time in canine retraction: An implant study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:87–93.
    1. Xu TM, Zhang X, Oh HS, Boyd RL, Korn EL, Baumrind S. Randomized clinical trial comparing control of maxillary anchorage with 2 retraction techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138:544.e1–9.
    1. Kharkar VR, Kotrashetti SM. Transport dentoalveolar distraction osteogenesis-assisted rapid orthodontic canine retraction. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;109:687–93.
    1. Aboul-Ela SM, El-Beialy AR, El-Sayed KM, Selim EM, El-Mangoury NH, Mostafa YA. Miniscrew implant-supported maxillary canine retraction with and without corticotomy-facilitated orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:252–9.
    1. Raj AB, Kumar MV. Rapid canine retraction with dentoalveolar distraction osteogensis. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2013;47:21–7.
    1. Mehta KR, Sable RB. Comparison of the amount of maxillary canine retraction with T-loops using TMA and stainless steel wires. A Clinical study. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2013;47:178–83.
    1. Eslamian L, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Hassanzadeh-Azhiri A, Badiee MR, Fekrazad R. The effect of 810-nm low-level laser therapy on pain caused by orthodontic elastomeric separators. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29:559–64.
    1. McIlvaine E, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Lane CJ, Azen SP, Yen SL. Apriori feasibility testing of randomized clinical trial design in patients with cleft deformities and Class III malocclusion. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2014;78:725–30.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa