Literature DB >> 21300221

Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial.

Andrew T DiBiase1, Inas H Nasr, Paul Scott, Martyn T Cobourne.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: This was a prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of bracket type on the duration of orthodontic treatment and the occlusal outcome as measured by the peer assessment rating (PAR).
METHODS: A multi-center randomized clinical trial was carried out in 2 orthodontic clinics. Sixty-two subjects (32 male, 30 female; mean age, 16.27 years) with a mean pretreatment PAR score of 39.40, mandibular irregularity from 5 to 12 mm, and prescribed extractions including mandibular first premolars were randomly allocated to treatment with either the Damon3 self-ligated or the Synthesis conventional ligated preadjusted bracket systems (both, Ormco, Glendora, Calif). An identical archwire sequence was used in both groups excluding the finishing archwires: 0.014-in, 0.014 × 0.025-in, and 0.018 × 0.025-in copper-nickel-titanium aligning archwires, followed by 0.019 × 0.025-in stainless steel working archwires. Data collected at the start of treatment and after appliance removal included dental study casts, total duration of treatment, number of visits, number of emergency visits and breakages during treatment, and number of failed appointments.
RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were recruited at the start of treatment, and the records of 48 patients were analyzed after appliance removal. Accounting for pretreatment and in-treatment covariates, bracket type had no effect on overall treatment duration, number of visits, or overall percentage of reduction in PAR scores. Time spent in space closure had an effect on treatment duration, and the pretreatment PAR score influenced only the reduction in PAR as a result of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Damon3 bracket does not reduce overall treatment time or total number of visits, or result in a better occlusal outcome when compared with conventional ligated brackets in the treatment of extraction patients with crowding.
Copyright © 2011 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21300221     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.020

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


  22 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

2.  Myths and realities in orthodontics.

Authors:  P S Fleming; S D Springate; R A C Chate
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2015-02-16       Impact factor: 1.626

3.  Effect of piezocision on mandibular second molar protraction.

Authors:  Marwan M Al-Areqi; Elham S Abu Alhaija; Emad F Al-Maaitah
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-05-01       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Mini-implant supported canine retraction with micro-osteoperforation: A split-mouth randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Saritha Sivarajan; Jennifer Geraldine Doss; Spyridon N Papageorgiou; Martyn T Cobourne; Mang Chek Wey
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  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

6.  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

Review 7.  Systematic review on self-ligating vs. conventional brackets: initial pain, number of visits, treatment time.

Authors:  Ales Čelar; Magdalena Schedlberger; Petra Dörfler; Michael Bertl
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2013-01-10       Impact factor: 1.938

Review 8.  Influence of piezotomy and osteoperforation of the alveolar process on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review.

Authors:  Stefan Hoffmann; Nikolaos Papadopoulos; Dominik Visel; Theresa Visel; Paul-Georg Jost-Brinkmann; Thomas Michael Präger
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-03-20       Impact factor: 1.938

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.