Introduction In everyday clinical practice, we often encounter a lack of space for placing all the teeth present into
dental arch; therefore it is often recommended to extract teeth within orthodontic treatment. In clinical practice, the
most commonly used methods of closing space after are elastic chains and NiTi closed spiral springs.
The aim of this paper was to compare postextraction space closure speed using two different sliding mechanisms, NiTi
closed coil springs and elastic chains within treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances.
Material and Method The total sample in this study consisted of 46 postexstraction spaces in 23 patients indicating the
extraction of first premolars using treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances. Two sliding mechanisms, NiTi closed
coil spring and elastic chains were applied to postextraction space closure. Postextraction spaces were monitored for
4 months with appointments every 4 weeks. During appointments mechanisms were activated and digital caliper was
used to measure the width of the postextraction space.
Results The results showed that NiTi closed coil springs method achieved greater reduction in postexstraction space
(3.94 mm) while with elastic chain method the closure of 3.10 mm was achieved. The total difference between these two
methods in the observed period was 0.84mm and no statistically significant difference was found (p> 0.05). The lowest
value for NiTi closed springs was 2.19 mm, while for the elastic chain it was 1.29 mm. The best postextraction space
closure was 5.70 mm and it was completed using NiTi closed springs while for elastic chain the best value was 4.80 mm.
Conclusion: NiTi closed coil springs lead to faster closure of postextraction spaces in relation to elastic chain. Since
this difference is minimal, in practice, both methods can be used equally.
