Literature DB >> 20122421

Active or passive self-ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparative efficiency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents.

Nikolaos Pandis1, Argy Polychronopoulou, Theodore Eliades.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Our aim was to compare the time required to complete the alignment of crowded maxillary anterior teeth (canine to canine) between Damon MX (Ormco, Glendora, Calif) and In-Ovation R (GAC, Central Islip, NY) self-ligating brackets.
METHODS: Seventy patients from the first author's office were included in this randomized controlled trial by using the following inclusion criteria: nonextraction treatment on both arches, eruption of all maxillary teeth, no spaces in the maxillary arch, no high canines, maxillary irregularity index greater than 4 mm, and no therapeutic intervention planned involving intermaxillary or other intraoral or extraoral appliances including elastics, maxillary expansion appliances, or headgear. The patients were randomized into 2 groups: the first received a Damon MX bracket; the second was bonded with an In-Ovation R appliance, both with a 0.022-in slot. The amount of crowding of the maxillary anterior dentition was assessed by using the irregularity index. The number of days required to completely alleviate the maxillary anterior crowding in the 2 groups was investigated with statistical methods for survival analysis, and alignment rate ratios for appliance type and crowding level were calculated with the Cox proportional hazard regression. An analysis of each protocol was performed.
RESULTS: No difference in crowding alleviation was found between the 2 bracket systems. Higher irregularity index values were associated with the increased probability of delayed resolving of crowding.
CONCLUSIONS: The use of passive or active self-ligating brackets does not seem to affect treatment duration for alleviating initial crowding. Copyright 2010 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20122421     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.08.019

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


  11 in total

1.  Tooth movement rate and anchorage lost during canine retraction: A maxillary and mandibular comparison.

Authors:  Andre da C Monini; Luiz G Gandini; Alexandre P Vianna; Renato P Martins; Helder B Jacob
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 2.079

Review 2.  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

3.  A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial.

Authors:  André da Costa Monini; Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior; Alexandre Protásio Vianna; Renato Parsekian Martins
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-05-31       Impact factor: 3.573

Review 4.  Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children.

Authors:  Sarah Turner; Jayne E Harrison; Fyeza Nj Sharif; Darren Owens; Declan T Millett
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-12-31

5.  Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Kristina Johansson; Fredrik Lundström
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-03-07       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Intra-examiner and Inter-examiner Reproducibility in Irregularity Index Measurements.

Authors:  Ersat Cem İrezli; Mücahid Faik Şahin; Rana Demir; Aslı Baysal
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2019-09-01

Review 7.  Outcomes of comprehensive fixed appliance orthodontic treatment: A systematic review with meta-analysis and methodological overview.

Authors:  Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Damian Höchli; Theodore Eliades
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 1.372

8.  Role of lubricants on friction between self-ligating brackets and archwires.

Authors:  Renata C Leal; Flávia L B Amaral; Fabiana M G França; Roberta T Basting; Cecilia P Turssi
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-04-01       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Canine retraction and anchorage loss: self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study.

Authors:  André da Costa Monini; Luiz Gonzaga Gandini Júnior; Renato Parsekian Martins; Alexandre Protásio Vianna
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  The effect of photobiomodulation on root resorption during orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  Ghada Nimeri; Chung H Kau; Rachel Corona; Jeffery Shelly
Journal:  Clin Cosmet Investig Dent       Date:  2014-01-15
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.