Literature DB >> 19732667

Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances.

Padhraig S Fleming1, Andrew T DiBiase, Grammati Sarri, Robert T Lee.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to compare the effects of 2 preadjusted appliances on angular and linear changes of the mandibular incisors, and transverse mandibular arch dimensional changes over a minimum of 30 weeks. This was a prospective, randomized, controlled, clinical trial a the Royal London Hospital, School of Dentistry, in London and the Kent and Canterbury Hospital in Canterbury, United Kingdom.
METHODS: Sixty- six consecutive patients satisfying the inclusion criteria were enrolled and randomly allocated to treatment with a self-ligating bracket system (SmartClip, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and conventional preadjusted edgewise brackets (Victory, 3M Unitek). Initial study models and cephalograms were obtained within a month of starting the trial. All subjects received treatment with the following archwire sequence: 0.016-in round, 0.017 x 0.025-in rectangular, 0.019 x 0.025-in rectangular martensitic active nickel-titanium archwires, and 0.019 x 0.025-in stainless steel archwires. Final records, including study models and a lateral cephalogram, were collected a minimum of 30 weeks after initial appliance placement. Lateral cephalograms were assessed for treatment-related changes in mandibular incisor inclination and position. Transverse dimensional changes in intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar dimensions, and the amount of crowding alleviated during the study period were assessed by comparison of pretreatment and posttreatment models. All measurements were made with a digital caliper (150 mm ISO 9001 electronic caliper, Tesa Technology, Renens, Switzerland).
RESULTS: Sixty patients completed the study. After adjustment for pretreatment values, duration of treatment, and amount of crowding alleviated during the study period, bracket type had little effect on incisor inclination (P = 0.437) and positional changes (P = 0.35), and intercanine (P = 0.967), inter-first premolar (P = 0.495), and inter-second premolar (P = 0.905) dimensions. However, the self-ligating appliance produced slightly more expansion in the molar region, a difference that was statistically significant (P = 0.009). Pretreatment values for incisor inclination (P = 0.044) and transverse dimensions (P = 0.000) affected inclination and transverse changes, respectively, with proclination less likely when the labial segment was proclined at the outset and expansion unlikely during leveling and alignment in wider arches. Greater alleviation of crowding during the study period resulted in more incisor proclination (P = 0.000) and advancement (P = 0.000).
CONCLUSIONS: There was little difference overall in the pattern of arch alignment and leveling related to the 2 preadjusted appliances. However, there was a statistically greater increase in intermolar width in the group treated with the self-ligating appliance, although the difference was only 0.91 mm.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19732667     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.030

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


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  Tooth and bone changes after initial anterior dental alignment using preformed vs customized nickel titanium archwires in adults: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Papatpong Phermsang-Ngarm; Chairat Charoemratrote
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-03-21       Impact factor: 2.079

3.  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

4.  Agreement of the clinician's choice of archwire selection on conventional and virtual models.

Authors:  Sahar Haddadpour; Saeed Reza Motamedian; Mohammad Behnaz; Sohrab Asefi; Alireza Akbarzadeh Bagheban; Amir Hossein Abdi; Mahtab Nouri
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-03-06       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  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

6.  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 7.  Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review.

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

8.  Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system.

Authors:  Rohini Vajaria; Ellen BeGole; Budi Kusnoto; Maria Therese Galang; Ales Obrez
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-03-25       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  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

10.  Three-dimensional analysis of dental decompensation for skeletal Class III malocclusion on the basis of vertical skeletal patterns obtained using cone-beam computed tomography.

Authors:  Yong-Il Kim; Youn-Kyung Choi; Soo-Byung Park; Woo-Sung Son; Seong-Sik Kim
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2012-10-29       Impact factor: 1.372

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.