RESUMO
AIM: To evaluate the three-dimensional position and root resorption of incisors after anterior segment retraction (ASR) using friction versus frictionless mechanics. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: Thirty female patients (13-18 years) with bimaxillary protrusion were randomly allocated into two groups. In the intervention group, ASR was undertaken using an elastomeric chain rendering 160 g/side extending between mini-screw implant and a hook crimped on 0.017 × 0.025-inch stainless-steel wire distal to the lateral incisor. In the comparison group, ASR was undertaken using closing T-loops fabricated from 0.017 × 0.025-inch titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA) wire rendering comparable retraction force. In both groups, the canine brackets were ligated after retraction to the mini-screw implants that were inserted in both the upper and lower arches bilaterally. The primary outcome was the three-dimensional changes in the position of the incisors. The secondary outcome was root resorption. These were measured from cone-beam computed tomography scans. RESULTS: Statistically significant decreases in the upper (UI) and lower incisors (LI) crown torque were seen in both groups; however, the difference between groups was not statistically or clinically significant (UI MD -2.04°; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -8.02-3.95; LI MD -0.49°; 95% CI = -7.06-6.08). Significant tipping of upper (MD -1.17°; 95% CI = -2.06--0.27) and lower (MD -1.13°; 95% CI = -1.66--0.60) incisors was found in the friction, but not the frictionless group after retraction; however, the changes were not clinically significant. Significant lower incisor intrusion was found in both groups after retraction; however, the difference between groups was not statistically or clinically significant (MD -0.61°; 95% CI = -1.99-0.77). Statistically significant decreases in the UI and LI root length were seen in both groups. The difference between groups for UI changes was statistically significant (MD 0.54 mm; 95% CI = -0.02-1.07) but probably not clinically significant. CONCLUSION: Considering the limitations in the current study, there was no advantage of either mechanics over the other regarding the final position of incisors. The likelihood of root resorption should be considered when frictionless mechanics are used for retraction of incisors. REGISTRY: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04878939).
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of friction vs frictionless mechanics on the rate of anterior segment retraction (ASR) in patients with bimaxillary protrusion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty females (18.3 ± 3.7 years) with bimaxillary protrusion were randomly allocated into the friction group, using elastomeric power chains, and the frictionless group, using T-loop springs for ASR. Eligibility criteria included absence of skeletal discrepancies and any systemic diseases or medications, among others. Randomization in a 1:1 ratio was generated by Microsoft Excel. Opaque sealed envelopes were sequentially numbered for allocation concealment. Only blinding of the outcome assessor was applicable. Activations were done every 4 weeks until completion of ASR. The primary outcome was the rate of ASR measured on digital models. Anchorage loss, molar rotation, and pain experienced were also assessed. RESULTS: Two patients were lost to follow-up. The rate of ASR was 0.68 ± 0.18 mm/mo in the friction group vs 0.88 ± 0.27 mm/mo in the frictionless group, with no significant difference. A significant difference in anchorage loss of 1.63 mm and molar rotation of 7.06° was observed, being higher in the frictionless group. A comparable pain experience associated with both mechanics was reported. CONCLUSIONS: No difference in the rate of ASR or pain experience was observed between friction and frictionless mechanics. However, extra anchorage measures should be considered when using frictionless mechanics as greater anchorage loss and molar rotations are anticipated.