Literature DB >> 17693371

Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects.

Nikolaos Pandis1, Argy Polychronopoulou, Theodore Eliades.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the duration of mandibular-crowding alleviation with self-ligating brackets compared with conventional appliances and the accompanying dental effects.
METHODS: Fifty-four subjects were selected from a pool of patients satisfying the following inclusion criteria: nonextraction treatment in the mandibular or maxillary arches; eruption of all mandibular teeth; no spaces in the mandibular arch; irregularity index greater than 2 in the mandibular arch; and no therapeutic intervention planned with any extraoral or intraoral appliance. The patients were randomly assigned to 2 groups: 1 group received treatment with a self-ligating bracket (Damon 2, Ormco, Glendora, Calif) and the other with a conventional edgewise appliance (Microarch, GAC, Central Islip, NY), both with 0.022-in slots. The irregularity index of the mandibular arch was normalized between the groups, and the time to alignment was estimated in days. Treatment duration was assessed by data modeling with the Cox proportional hazard regression. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were used to assess the alteration of mandibular incisor position before and after alignment. Measurements of intercanine and intermolar widths were also made on dental casts to determine changes associated with correction. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, no difference in the time required to correct mandibular crowding with Damon 2 and conventional brackets was observed. For moderate crowding (irregularity index <5), however, the self-ligating group had 2.7 times faster correction. This difference was marginally insignificant for subjects with irregularity index scores greater than 5. Greater crowding prolonged treatment by an additional 20% for each irregularity index unit. Increases in intercanine and intermolar widths associated with crowding correction regardless of bracket group were noted. The self-ligating group showed a statistically greater intermolar width increase than the conventional group. Also, an alignment-induced increase in the proclination of the mandibular incisors was observed for both bracket groups, but no difference was found between Damon 2 and conventional brackets for this parameter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17693371     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  34 in total

1.  Comparative evaluation of anchorage loss between self-ligating appliance and Conventional pre-adjusted edgewise appliance using sliding mechanics - A retrospective study.

Authors:  Pankaj Juneja; G Shivaprakash; S S Chopra; P B Kambalyal
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2014-04-03

2.  Dentoalveolar mandibular changes with self-ligating versus conventional bracket systems: A CBCT and dental cast study.

Authors:  Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; Cristina Futagami; Ana Cláudia de Castro Ferreira Conti; Paula Vanessa Pedron Oltramari-Navarro; Ricardo de Lima Navarro
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 May-Jun

3.  Decrowding of lower anterior segment with and without photobiomodulation: a single center, randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Amer Z Nahas; Said A Samara; Tannaz A Rastegar-Lari
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2016-10-20       Impact factor: 3.161

Review 4.  Differences between active and passive self-ligating brackets for orthodontic treatment : Systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Xianrui Yang; Yiruo He; Tian Chen; Mengyuan Zhao; Yinqiu Yan; Hongzhe Wang; Ding Bai
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Different bracket-archwire combinations for simulated correction of two-dimensional tooth malalignment: Leveling outcomes and initial force systems.

Authors:  Sue Holtmann; Anna Konermann; Ludger Keilig; Susanne Reimann; Andreas Jäger; Mona Montasser; Tarek El-Bialy; Christoph Bourauel
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2014-10-26       Impact factor: 1.938

6.  Transversal changes, space closure, and efficiency of conventional and self-ligating appliances : A quantitative systematic review.

Authors:  Xianrui Yang; Chaoran Xue; Yiruo He; Mengyuan Zhao; Mengqi Luo; Peiqi Wang; Ding Bai
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-11-03       Impact factor: 1.938

7.  Long-term stability of dentoalveolar, skeletal, and soft tissue changes after non-extraction treatment with a self-ligating system.

Authors:  Faruk Ayhan Basciftci; Mehmet Akin; Zehra Ileri; Sinem Bayram
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2014-05-19       Impact factor: 1.372

8.  Self-ligating vs conventional brackets as perceived by orthodontists.

Authors:  Chase Prettyman; Al M Best; Steven J Lindauer; Eser Tufekci
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-03-12       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 9.  Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review.

Authors:  Padhraig S Fleming; Ama Johal
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets.

Authors:  Ferdinand M Machibya; Xingfu Bao; Lihua Zhao; Min Hu
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-08-17       Impact factor: 2.079

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.