@article{AI2016, 
author = {Yi-long AI and Zeng-quan WANG and Peng ZHANG and Si-yuan WU},
title = {Clinical comparison of space closure with sliding mechanism between self ligating bracket and twin brackets},
year = {2016},
journal = {Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases},
volume = {24},
number = {6},
pages = {349-351},
keywords = {Self-ligating bracket, Twin bracket, Sliding mechanism, Space closure, Dental arch},
url = {https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2016.06.007},
doi = {10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2016.06.007},
abstract = {ObjectiveTo compare the the rate of en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics between 3M SmartClip self-ligating brackets and 3M Gemini MBT twin brackets in the first premolar extraction patients.Methods20 Class I malocclusion patients who need first premolar extraction treatment were selected. One arch side of the second premolar and first molar were bonded with 3M self-ligating brackets and the other side bonded with Gemini MBT twin brackets. After leveling and alignment, 0.48 mm × 0.64 mm (0.019 inch × 0.025 inch) stainless steel wire and nickel titanium coil springs were used to close the space. An average rate of space closure per month (mm/month) was calculated in each side.ResultsThe median rates of tooth movement for the SmartClip bracket side (1.03 mm per month) and the Gemini MBT twin brackets side (1.00 mm per month) were not significantly different (t = 0.70, P = 0.48).ConclusionThere was no significant difference in the rate of en-masse space closure between SmartClip brackets and Gemini MBT twin brackets.}
}