OBJECTIVE: To conduct a prospective and randomized study of the efficiency of orthodontic treatment with self-ligating edgewise brackets (SL; Time2 brand, American Orthodontics) and conventional edgewise twin brackets (CE; Gemini brand, 3M). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients were randomized to treatment with either SL or CE brackets. The participants were treated by one of three specialists in orthodontics and with continuous instructions alternately by five orthodontic assistants according to our normal treatment routine (ie, modified 0.022" MBT preadjusted edgewise technique). The treatments were evaluated in terms of overall treatment time, number of visits, and treatment outcome using the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). The number of emergency appointments, number of archwires, overjet, relative space, and extractions at treatment start were noted. RESULTS: After dropouts, the analyzed material consisted of 44 patients treated with SL (mean age 15.3 years, mean ICON 60.7, 70.4% female) and 46 patients treated with CE (mean age 15.0 years, mean ICON 56.5, 71.7% female). There were no statistically significant differences between the SL and CE groups in terms of mean treatment time in months (20.4 vs 18.2), mean number of visits (15.5 vs 14.1), mean ICON scores after treatment (13.2 vs 11.9), or mean ICON improvement grade (7.9 vs 9.1). CONCLUSION: Orthodontic treatment with SL brackets does not reduce treatment time or number of appointments and does not affect posttreatment ICON scores or ICON improvement grade compared with CE brackets.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a prospective and randomized study of the efficiency of orthodontic treatment with self-ligating edgewise brackets (SL; Time2 brand, American Orthodontics) and conventional edgewise twin brackets (CE; Gemini brand, 3M). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred consecutive patients were randomized to treatment with either SL or CE brackets. The participants were treated by one of three specialists in orthodontics and with continuous instructions alternately by five orthodontic assistants according to our normal treatment routine (ie, modified 0.022" MBT preadjusted edgewise technique). The treatments were evaluated in terms of overall treatment time, number of visits, and treatment outcome using the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). The number of emergency appointments, number of archwires, overjet, relative space, and extractions at treatment start were noted. RESULTS: After dropouts, the analyzed material consisted of 44 patients treated with SL (mean age 15.3 years, mean ICON 60.7, 70.4% female) and 46 patients treated with CE (mean age 15.0 years, mean ICON 56.5, 71.7% female). There were no statistically significant differences between the SL and CE groups in terms of mean treatment time in months (20.4 vs 18.2), mean number of visits (15.5 vs 14.1), mean ICON scores after treatment (13.2 vs 11.9), or mean ICON improvement grade (7.9 vs 9.1). CONCLUSION: Orthodontic treatment with SL brackets does not reduce treatment time or number of appointments and does not affect posttreatment ICON scores or ICON improvement grade compared with CE brackets.
Authors: C A Reicheneder; T Gedrange; S Berrisch; P Proff; U Baumert; A Faltermeier; D Muessig Journal: Eur J Orthod Date: 2008-11-21 Impact factor: 3.075
Authors: Juliana Gómez Arana; Diego Rey; Héctor Ríos; María Antonia Álvarez; Lucia Cevidanes; Antonio C Ruellas; Juan Fernando Aristizábal Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2022-05-01 Impact factor: 2.684