Comparison of T-Loop vs Opus Loop in Canine Retraction Efficacy and Anchorage Loss Control – A Split- Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51985/Keywords:
anchorage loss, angulation, canine retraction, Opus loop, T-loopAbstract
Objective: The primary aim was to compare the rate of canine retraction between T loop and Opus loop. The secondary objectives were to compare the angulation of canine, anchorage loss and molar rotation for the two loops used. Study Design and Setting: A Split- Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial done at Department of Orthodontics, Bahria University of Health Sciences Campus Karachi
Methodology: This study conducted including 14 participants who received both the Opus loop and T-loop in different quadrants. The primary outcome assessed was rate of canine retraction which was measured clinically at every appointment using calibrated calliper. Secondary outcomes included changes in canine angulation, anchorage loss and molar rotation. Canine angulation was measured using periapical radiographs of maxillary canine to 1st molar taken by DIGORA™ Optime at the start of canine retraction and after completion of canine retraction. Anchorage loss and molar rotation was measured by model analysis. For statistical analysis non-parametric test Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to compare the treatment changes between Opus loop and T-loop.
Result: rate of canine retraction was higher in Opus loop (1.5 mm/month) compared to T-loop (1.45 mm/month) however no statistically significant differences between was found in rate of canine retraction, angulation change, anchorage loss, or molar rotation (p > 0.05), indicating comparable clinical performance of both mechanics during space closure. Conclusion: Both loops showed similar efficacy during canine retraction.
References
1. Ribeiro GL, Jacob HB. Understanding the basis of space
closure in Orthodontics for a more efficient orthodontic
treatment. Dent Press J Orthod. 2016;21:115–25.
2. Barsoum HA, ElSayed HS, El Sharaby FA, Palomo JM,
Mostafa YA. Comprehensive comparison of canine retraction
using NiTi closed coil springs vs elastomeric chains: a splitmouth randomized controlled trial. Angle Orthod.
2021;91(4):441–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/110620-916.1
3. Trpevska V, Tanatarec I, Srbinoska D, Mijoska A. Straight
wire and segmented technique in canine retraction: case
reports. Arch Public Health. 2022;14:1. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.3889/aph.2022.6024
4. Nandan H, Kumar CS, Jha P. Comparison of maxillary canine
retraction using split-mouth design with dual force cuspid
retractor and T-loop segmental arch: a split-mouth randomized
clinical trial. Cureus. 2023;15(2).
5. Davis S, Sundareswaran S, James J. Comparative evaluation
of the efficiency of canine retraction using modified Marcotte
and T-loop retraction springs – a split-mouth, randomized
clinical trial. J Orthod Sci. 2019;8:1–7.
6. Ozaki H, Tominaga JY, Hamanaka R, Sumi M, Chiang PC,
Tanaka M, et al. Biomechanical aspects of segmented arch
mechanics combined with power arm for controlled anterior
tooth movement: a three-dimensional finite element study. J
Dent Biomech. 2015;6:1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/
1758736014566337
7. Techalertpaisarn P, Versus A. Mechanical properties of Opus
closing loops, L-loops, and T-loops investigated with finite
element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2013;143(5):675–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.ajodo.
2013.01.011
8. Burstone CJ, Koenig HA. Optimizing anterior and canine
retraction. Am J Orthod. 1976;70(1):1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/
10.1016/0002-9416(76)90257-8
9. Kumari S, Niranjane P. Evaluation and comparison of momentto-force ratio of a new “PRP loop” with that of Opus loop
and L loop: a finite element method study. J Clin Diagn Res.
2023;17(5):ZC11–ZC15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/
JCDR/2023/63343.179440. Geramy A, Mahmoudi R, Geranmayeh AR, Borujeni ES,
Farhadifard H, Darvishpour H. A comparison of mechanical
characteristics of four common orthodontic loops in different
ranges of activation and angular bends: the concordance
between experiment and finite element analysis. Int Orthod.
2018;16(1):42–59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ortho.2018.
01.011
11. do Amaral Ferreira M, Rodrigues FRM, Luersen MA, Borges
PC. Closing loops: geometry and mechanical properties – a
review. Orthod J Nepal. 2022;12(1):64–74.
12. Nanda R. Biomechanics in clinical orthodontics. Philadelphia:
Saunders; 1997.
13. Siatkowski RE. Continuous arch wire closing loop design,
optimization, and verification. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 1997a;112:393–402. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(97)
70047-7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70047-
7
14. Siatkowski RE. Continuous arch wire closing loop design,
optimization, and verification. Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 1997b;112:487–95. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(97)
70075-1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70075-
1
15. Safavi MR, Geramy A, Khezri AK. M/F ratios of four different
closing loops: 3D analysis using the finite element method
(FEM). Aust Orthod J. 2006;22(2):121–6.16. Obaidi H, Sabah O. Evaluation of tipping, rotation and rate
of space closure of canine retraction by frictionless orthodontic
techniques (An in vitro study). Al-Rafidain Dent J. 2006;6(3):
30–7.
17. Barot M, Shah A, Hirani S, Thakore K, Desai S, Pancholi D.
Comparative evaluation of different loops for individual
canine and en-masse retraction: a finite element method (FEM)
study. Int J Health Sci. 2022;6(S1):3037–50. DOI: https://doi.
org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS1.5302
18. Masaes MM, Burhan AS, Youssef M, Nawaya FR. T-loop
spring vs Ricketts maxillary canine retractor in canine retraction
efficacy and anchorage loss control: a cone-beam computed
tomography study. AJO-DO Clin Comp. 2022;2(1):26–40.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xaor.2021.12.001
19. Rodrigues EU, Maruo H, Guariza Filho O, Tanaka O, Camargo
ES. Mechanical evaluation of space closure loops in
orthodontics. Braz Oral Res. 2011;25:63–8. doi:10.1590/
S1806-83242011005000003
20. Sanjay N, Rajesh RN, Scindia R, Ajith SD. Space closure
with loop mechanics for treatment of bimaxillary protrusion:
a case report. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(5):65–8.
21. Harada R, Yokoi Y, Kamoi A, Miyawaki R, Yoshida T,
Kawamura J, et al. Biomechanical analysis of extraction space
closure with various loop springs incorporated into an archwire.
Appl Sci (Basel). 2023;13(4):2616. doi:10.3390/app13042616
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Journal of Bahria University Medical & Dental College is an open access journal and is licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0. which permits unrestricted non commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
