OBJECTIVES: To explore whether the use of self-ligating brackets is associated with better values for periodontal indices because of the lack of elastomeric modules and concomitantly, reduced availability of retentive sites for microbial colonization and plaque accumulation. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Private practice of the first author. Patients were selected using the following inclusion criteria: age range 12-17 years, fixed appliances on both arches, aligned mandibular arch, and absence of oral habits and anterior crossbites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort investigation. Participants were grouped for bracket type, thus 50 patients formed the conventional bracket cohort and 50 patients the self-ligating bracket cohort. Both cohorts were followed with the purpose to examine periodontal status. Average length of follow-up was 18 months. This time period was considered adequate for a proportion of study participants to experience the outcome of interest. Outcome variables were plaque index, gingival index, calculus index, and probing depth for the two bracket cohorts. RESULTS: No difference was found in the indices recorded between the two bracket cohorts studied. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions as applied in this study, the self-ligating brackets do not have an advantage over conventional brackets with respect to the periodontal status of the mandibular anterior teeth.
OBJECTIVES: To explore whether the use of self-ligating brackets is associated with better values for periodontal indices because of the lack of elastomeric modules and concomitantly, reduced availability of retentive sites for microbial colonization and plaque accumulation. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION: Private practice of the first author. Patients were selected using the following inclusion criteria: age range 12-17 years, fixed appliances on both arches, aligned mandibular arch, and absence of oral habits and anterior crossbites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort investigation. Participants were grouped for bracket type, thus 50 patients formed the conventional bracket cohort and 50 patients the self-ligating bracket cohort. Both cohorts were followed with the purpose to examine periodontal status. Average length of follow-up was 18 months. This time period was considered adequate for a proportion of study participants to experience the outcome of interest. Outcome variables were plaque index, gingival index, calculus index, and probing depth for the two bracket cohorts. RESULTS: No difference was found in the indices recorded between the two bracket cohorts studied. CONCLUSION: Under the conditions as applied in this study, the self-ligating brackets do not have an advantage over conventional brackets with respect to the periodontal status of the mandibular anterior teeth.