INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to test the hypotheses that treatment with 2 fixed orthodontic appliances (SmartClip and Victory; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) would result in no difference in (1) the duration of orthodontic treatment or (2) the number of visits required. METHODS:Sixty-six consecutive patients were randomly allocated to treatment with a self-ligating bracket system (SmartClip) or a conventional appliance (Victory). The duration of treatment and the number of visits required in addition to the initial and final peer assessment rating (PAR) scores were recorded. The number of teeth extracted during treatment and the frequency of mechanical eruption of canines were also noted. Analyses of covariance were used to assess the influence of bracket type on treatment durations, visits required, and percentage PAR score reductions. RESULTS: Fifty-four (81.8%) participants completed the study. The duration of treatment was 3 months greater in the group treated with SmartClip. However, bracket type had no statistical influence on treatment duration (P = 0.076), total visits required (P = 0.184), or percentage PAR score reduction (P = 0.255). CONCLUSIONS: Neither hypothesis could be rejected. Bracket type did not influence the duration of treatment or the number of visits required. The percentages of PAR score reductions were also unaffected by the choice of appliance. 2010 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Our objective was to test the hypotheses that treatment with 2 fixed orthodontic appliances (SmartClip and Victory; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) would result in no difference in (1) the duration of orthodontic treatment or (2) the number of visits required. METHODS: Sixty-six consecutive patients were randomly allocated to treatment with a self-ligating bracket system (SmartClip) or a conventional appliance (Victory). The duration of treatment and the number of visits required in addition to the initial and final peer assessment rating (PAR) scores were recorded. The number of teeth extracted during treatment and the frequency of mechanical eruption of canines were also noted. Analyses of covariance were used to assess the influence of bracket type on treatment durations, visits required, and percentage PAR score reductions. RESULTS: Fifty-four (81.8%) participants completed the study. The duration of treatment was 3 months greater in the group treated with SmartClip. However, bracket type had no statistical influence on treatment duration (P = 0.076), total visits required (P = 0.184), or percentage PAR score reduction (P = 0.255). CONCLUSIONS: Neither hypothesis could be rejected. Bracket type did not influence the duration of treatment or the number of visits required. The percentages of PAR score reductions were also unaffected by the choice of appliance. 2010 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.
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
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