» Articles » PMID: 37959222

How Effective Are Non-Frictional Techniques Compared to Sliding Techniques in the Retraction of Upper Anterior Teeth When Using Buccal Fixed-Appliance Therapy? A Systematic Review

Overview
Journal J Clin Med
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2023 Nov 14
PMID 37959222
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Methods for retracting the anterior teeth are divided into frictional methods and non-frictional methods. However, evidence regarding the superiority of one technique over the other is still lacking in the available literature. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the current evidence regarding the effectiveness of frictional methods of anterior teeth retraction compared to the non-frictional ones. The extracted data included the mechanism of application of the retraction force and its intensity, the observation period, follow-up records, and outcome measures. Ten studies were included in this review; the results did not favor a specific technique regarding the rate of orthodontic tooth movement and loss of anchorage during canine retraction, although a preference was shown for the sliding technique in the rate of en-masse retraction (0.74 versus 0.39 mm/month) and the anchorage control during the retraction of the incisors (0.5 versus 0.1 mm/month). The control of the incisor's torque during the en-masse retraction was higher when frictionless techniques were used (-12° versus -7°). Regarding the rate of orthodontic tooth movement, the non-frictional technique is characterized by a high sensitivity to the quality of the design, and the sliding technique was generally effective. As for controlling the torque of the incisors, the preference is for the non-frictional technique. Overall, there is a need to conduct more studies with an appropriate design.

Citing Articles

Innovative Treatment Approach: Multiple Variability (MV) Loop Intervention for Angle Class I Malocclusion with Dewey's Type 2 Modification: A Case Report.

Sharma N, Kamble R, Atole S, Nerurkar S, Kaiser J Cureus. 2024; 16(7):e64733.

PMID: 39156379 PMC: 11329328. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.64733.

References
1.
Kuhlberg A, Priebe D . Testing force systems and biomechanics--measured tooth movements from differential moment closing loops. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73(3):270-80. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)073<0270:TFSABT>2.0.CO;2. View

2.
Sarikaya S, Haydar B, Ciger S, Ariyurek M . Changes in alveolar bone thickness due to retraction of anterior teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122(1):15-26. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.119804. View

3.
Leonardi R, Annunziata A, Licciardello V, Barbato E . Soft tissue changes following the extraction of premolars in nongrowing patients with bimaxillary protrusion. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2009; 80(1):211-6. PMC: 8978740. DOI: 10.2319/010709-16.1. View

4.
Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer M . Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 36(3):275-83. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046. View

5.
Khlef H, Hajeer M, Ajaj M, Heshmeh O, Youssef N, Mahaini L . The effectiveness of traditional corticotomy vs flapless corticotomy in miniscrew-supported en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion: A single-centered, randomized controlled clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020; 158(6):e111-e120. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2020.08.008. View