Comparison of maxillary canine retraction using MBT™ versus Roth®. Prescriptions in young adult orthodontic patients: A split-mouth prospective clinical trial.

Background Shorter orthodontic treatment duration can minimize adverse effects. There is a lack of literature comparing McLaughlin, Bennett, and Trevisi (MBT™) and Roth® prescriptions on canine retraction rate. Objective To compare the rate of maxillary canine retraction between MBT™ and Roth® bracket prescriptions. Material And Methods A split-mouth prospective clinical trial was conducted on 40 orthodontic patients over three months, requiring maxillary first premolar extractions. One side was bonded with MBT™ brackets and the contralateral side with Roth brackets. Leveling and alignment were completed with 0.017″×0.025″ stainless steel archwire. Canine retraction was initiated using sliding mechanics with nickel-titanium coil springs. Measurements were taken at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Data were analyzed using linear mixed models. Results Mean age was 20.1(2.9) years, and 57.5% were female. MBT™ brackets demonstrated a significantly higher rate of canine retraction than Roth brackets. The mean differences in retraction rates at one, two, and three months were 0.2mm, 0.13mm, and 0.13mm, respectively (P<0.05). The total canine movement over three months was also significantly greater in the MBT™ group (mean difference: 0.45mm/month [95%CI: 0.32, 0.59]). On average, the rate of canine movement, after adjusting for time, was 0.16mm/month lower in Roth® compared to MBT™ (95% CI: -0.19, -0.12, P<0.001). Conclusion MBT™ brackets facilitate a higher rate of canine retraction compared to Roth® brackets. MBT™ can used in cases requiring faster canine movement, while Roth® brackets may benefit from additional adjuncts to improve efficiency.