This well carried out small study showed us that the lower cost interventions was as effective as the more expensive option. The regression analysis revealed that there was no significant differences between the interventions. The average rate of space closure for the NiTi springs was 0.58 (0.24) mm/4 weeks and for the stainless steel springs this was 0.85 (0.36) mm/4 weeks. Unfortunately, they did not include all the participants who started the study in the data analysis because of time constraints. The average age of both groups at the start of treatment was 16 years. They allocated 19 (10 boys, 9 girls) to the NiTi springs and 21 (9 boys, 12 goals) to the stainless steel coil springs. They used a relevant multivariate statistical analysis. A blinded examiner used a digital calliper to measure the distance between the cusp of the canine and the mesio-buccal groove of the first permanent molar. They took study casts at the start and end of space closure. Randomisation, concealment and blinding were good. They randomly allocated the patients to have space closure with stainless steel or NiTi coil springs. Outcome: rate of space closure measured on study casts Intervention: stainless steel coil springs Population: patients aged between 12 to 35 years old who had pre-molars extracted as part of their treatment. They carried out a two centre parallel group randomised controlled trial.
STAINLESS STEEL TEUTONIC ORDER TRIAL
They decided to carry out this trial to find out if there were any differences in the rate of space closure between NiTi (expensive) and stainless steel springs (much cheaper).
They also pointed out that NiTi coil springs are felt to be the most effective method of force application for space closure, when sliding mechanics are used.
I also spotted that the rates of space closure in 5 of these trials were very similar or greater than that quoted in the much publicised trial on AcceleDent that I have previously discussed. In the introduction, they outlined the findings of seven clinical trials that have looked at space closure and summarised these in a very nice table that showed that the mean rate of space closure varied from 0.35 – 1.85 mm per month. Noraina Norman, Helen Worthington & Stephen Laceback Chadwick Nickel titanium springs versus stainless steel springs: A randomized clinical trial of two methods of space closure They published it in the Journal of Orthodontics. Several of my close colleagues based in the Republic of Mancunia (Manchester), North of England, did this trial. We also would like this phase of treatment to be short. We all know that good space closure requires skill and careful anchorage management. Most operators will extract teeth, when required, as part of orthodontic treatment. I felt that this was an interesting clinical question This week’s post is about orthodontic space closure and I’m going to discuss a recent paper about a trial of two types of space closing spring. What is best for space closure? NiTi or stainless steel springs…