Literature DB >> 20691348

Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment.

Emily Ong1, Hugh McCallum, Mark P Griffin, Christopher Ho.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of self-ligating (SL) and conventionally ligated (CL) brackets during the first 20 weeks of extraction treatment.
METHODS: Study models of 50 consecutive patients who had premolar extractions in the maxillary and/or mandibular arch, 0.022 x 0.028-in slot brackets, and similar archwire sequences were examined. Forty-four arches received SL Damon 3MX brackets (Ormco, Glendora, Calif), and 40 arches received either CL Victory Series (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) or Mini-Diamond (Ormco) brackets. The models were evaluated for anterior arch alignment, extraction spaces, and arch dimensions at pretreatment (T0), 10 weeks (T1), and 20 weeks (T2).
RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the SL and CL groups at 20 weeks in irregularity scores (mandibular arch, P = 0.54; maxillary arch, P = 0.81). There were no significant differences in passive extraction space closures between the SL and CL groups (mandibular arch, T0-T2, P = 0.85; maxillary arch, T0-T2, P = 0.33). Mandibular intercanine widths increased from T0 to T2: 1.96 and 2.86 mm in the SL and CL groups, respectively. This was not significant between the groups (P = 0.31). Logistic regression did not show a difference between the SL and CL bracket groups.
CONCLUSIONS: SL brackets were no more efficient than CL brackets in anterior alignment or passive extraction space closure during the first 20 weeks of treatment. Ligation technique is only one of many factors that can influence the efficiency of treatment. Similar changes in arch dimensions occurred, irrespective of bracket type, that might be attributed to the archform of the archwires. Copyright (c) 2010 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20691348     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.03.020

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


  15 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

4.  Root resorption, treatment time and extraction rate during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets.

Authors:  Collin Jacobs; Philipp F Gebhardt; Viviana Jacobs; Marlene Hechtner; Dan Meila; Heinrich Wehrbein
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2014-01-23       Impact factor: 2.151

5.  Mandibular changes during initial alignment with SmartClip self-ligating and conventional brackets: A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Mevlut Celikoglu; Mehmet Bayram; Metin Nur; Dogan Kilkis
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 1.372

6.  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

7.  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

8.  Photobiomodulation accelerates orthodontic alignment in the early phase of treatment.

Authors:  Chung How Kau; Alpdogan Kantarci; Tim Shaughnessy; Amornpong Vachiramon; Peerapong Santiwong; Alvaro de la Fuente; Darya Skrenes; Dennis Ma; Peter Brawn
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2013-09-19       Impact factor: 2.750

9.  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

10.  A comparative in-vivo evaluation of the alignment efficiency of 5 ligation methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy; Talapaneni Ashok Kumar; Mandava Prasad; Sivakumar Nuvvula; Rajedra Goud Patil; Praveen Kumar Reddy
Journal:  Eur J Dent       Date:  2014-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.