LAUSR

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES The aim of this systematic review was to compare the different force delivery systems for orthodontic space closure by sliding mechanics. SEARCH METHODS Multiple sources including Cochrane Central, Ovid Medline, Embase etc. were used to identify all relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomized controlled trials (RCT) of parallel-group and split-mouth designs were included. PARTICIPANTS Orthodontic patients of any age treated with fixed orthodontic appliances and requiring space closure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Search result screening, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently and in duplicate by 2 reviewers. The included studies were grouped into parallel-arm and split-mouth studies and subgroup analysis was then performed for the type of retraction subsets; en-masse and individual canine retraction. A traditional meta-analysis, and network meta-analysis (NMA) for direct and indirect comparisons for the rate of space closure were performed. RESULTS Thirteen studies, six parallel-arm and seven split-mouth were included. The traditional meta-analysis comparing Nickel-titanium (NiTi) closed coil springs and elastomeric power chain for the rate of tooth movement showed statistically significant difference favouring NiTi springs (MD: 0.24; 95% CI, 0.03-0.45; I2 0%, P = 0.02) and the comparison between NiTi springs and active ligatures also showed statistically significant result favouring NiTi springs (MD: 0.53; 95% CI, 0.44-0.63; I2 0%, P ˂ 0.00001) for the rate of tooth movement. NMA for the rate of space closure showed fairly confident evidence for NiTi coil springs when compared with elastomeric chain and active ligatures. The NiTi coil spring ranked best between all methods of space closure. CONCLUSIONS There is moderate quality evidence in favour of NiTi coil springs for the rate of space closure when compared with active ligature and low quality of evidence favouring NiTi springs when compared with elastomeric chain. The ranking from NMA showed NiTi coil springs to be the best method for space closure with 99% chance. An urgent need for standardization of study designs and the need for development of an agreed core outcome sets and core outcome instrument measurement sets is evident. REGISTRATION PROSPERO CRD42020157811.