%0 Journal Article
%T Effectiveness of nickel-titanium springs vs elastomeric chains in orthodontic space closure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
%A Mohammed H
%A Rizk MZ
%A Wafaie K
%A Almuzian M
%J Orthod Craniofac Res
%V 21
%N 1
%D Feb 2018
%M 29265578
%F 2.563
%R 10.1111/ocr.12210
%X The aim of this study is to explore the effectiveness of nickel titanium closing springs (NiTi-CS) and elastomeric power chains (EPC) in orthodontic space closure and to assess the adverse periodontal effects, cost efficiency and patient-centred outcomes between both of these methods.
METHODS: An electronic search of online databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, LILACS and Web of Science), reference lists and grey literature as well as hand search were conducted without language restriction up to November/2017. Two authors blindly and in duplicate were involved in study selection, quality assessment and the extraction of data. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. 95% confidence intervals and mean difference for continuous data were calculated. A meta-analysis that generated a random-effect model for the comparable outcomes was conducted, and heterogeneity was measured using I2 statistic.
RESULTS: Of 187 records, 4 RCTs met the criteria and were included in the quantitative synthesis featuring 290 test quadrants. Faster space closure with NiTi-CS was observed with a mean difference of (0.20 mm/month, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.28). Loss of anchorage appears to be similar within both groups when synthesized qualitatively. With exception to anchorage loss, secondary outcomes could not be investigated in the included trials.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a moderate quality of evidence suggesting a faster orthodontic space closure with the NiTi-CS when compared to EPC. A comparable amount of anchorage loss was observed regardless of the utilized method of space closure. Further high-quality RCTs with parallel-groups, reporting on the adverse effects and patient-centred values, are recommended.