OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are significant clinical differences between self-ligating brackets (SLB) and conventional brackets (CB) during orthodontic treatment, as perceived by orthodontists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was developed and distributed to evaluate how SLB compare to CB in terms of orthodontists' perceptions (n = 430). RESULTS: SLB were preferred during the initial stage of treatment based on the shorter adjustment appointments and faster initial treatment progress they provided (P < .0001). On the other hand, practitioners preferred CB during the finishing and detailing stages of treatment (P < .0001). CB were also preferred over SLB because they were cheaper and resulted in fewer emergency appointments. CONCLUSIONS: The orthodontists' preference was significantly influenced by (1) the proportion of patients treated with SLB (P < .0001), (2) the number of cases it took them to become accustomed to SLB (P < .0001), and (3) the average appointment intervals associated with SLB (P < .0001).
OBJECTIVE: To determine if there are significant clinical differences between self-ligating brackets (SLB) and conventional brackets (CB) during orthodontic treatment, as perceived by orthodontists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was developed and distributed to evaluate how SLB compare to CB in terms of orthodontists' perceptions (n = 430). RESULTS: SLB were preferred during the initial stage of treatment based on the shorter adjustment appointments and faster initial treatment progress they provided (P < .0001). On the other hand, practitioners preferred CB during the finishing and detailing stages of treatment (P < .0001). CB were also preferred over SLB because they were cheaper and resulted in fewer emergency appointments. CONCLUSIONS: The orthodontists' preference was significantly influenced by (1) the proportion of patients treated with SLB (P < .0001), (2) the number of cases it took them to become accustomed to SLB (P < .0001), and (3) the average appointment intervals associated with SLB (P < .0001).
Authors: Maria Regina Guerra Monteiro; Licinio Esmeraldo da Silva; Carlos Nelson Elias; Oswaldo de Vasconcellos Vilella Journal: J Appl Oral Sci Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.698
Authors: Adriana González-Sáez; Laura Antonio-Zancajo; Javier Montero; Alberto Albaladejo; María Melo; Daniele Garcovich; Alfonso Alvarado-Lorenzo Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 2.430