Literature DB >> 22900592

Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets.

Ferdinand M Machibya1, Xingfu Bao, Lihua Zhao, Min Hu.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss among orthodontic patients treated by self-ligating brackets (SLBs) and conventional brackets (CBs).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study compared 34 patients (SLB group) treated by SmartClip brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) to 35 patients (CB group) treated by conventional preadjusted Victory series brackets (3M Unitek) and ligated by stainless steel wire ligatures. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were traced and analyzed using Pancherz sagittal-occlusion analysis to obtain skeletal and dental changes in the maxilla and the mandible. The dental cast models were assessed by the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index for the treatment outcomes.
RESULTS: The mean treatment time for SLBs (19.19 months) did not show a statistically significant difference from 21.25 months of CBs; the treatment time and pretreatment PAR scores were strongly correlated. There was no difference in anchorage loss between the SLB and CB groups. There were significant dental and skeletal changes among adolescent orthodontic patients regardless of the bracket used. The lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors in the CB group was 3.62° more than in the SLB group (P < .01).
CONCLUSIONS: The treatment time and anchorage loss are not influenced by the type of bracket used. There are significant dental and skeletal changes among adolescent orthodontic patients regardless of the bracket used. There is significantly greater lingual inclination of mandibular incisors in the CB group than in the SLB group.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22900592      PMCID: PMC8793646          DOI: 10.2319/041912-326.1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  28 in total

1.  The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system.

Authors:  D H Damon
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  1998-11

2.  Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency.

Authors:  N W Harradine
Journal:  Clin Orthod Res       Date:  2001-11

3.  An evaluation of slot size in orthodontic brackets--are standards as expected?

Authors:  A C Cash; S A Good; R V Curtis; F McDonald
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  The effect of different extraction sites upon incisor retraction.

Authors:  R Williams; F J Hosila
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1976-04

5.  Anchorage control in bioprogressive vs straight-wire treatment.

Authors:  Dayse Urias; Fatima Ibrahim Abdel Mustafa
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Paul Scott; Andrew T DiBiase; Martyn Sherriff; Martyn T Cobourne
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.650

7.  The influence of the SPEED bracket's self-ligating design on force levels in tooth movement: a comparative in vitro study.

Authors:  J L Berger
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1990-03       Impact factor: 2.650

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

Authors:  Andrew T DiBiase; Inas H Nasr; Paul Scott; Martyn T Cobourne
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement ex vivo through three types of pre-adjusted brackets when subjected to determined tip or torque values.

Authors:  A P Sims; N E Waters; D J Birnie
Journal:  Br J Orthod       Date:  1994-11

10.  Density of the alveolar and basal bones of the maxilla and the mandible.

Authors:  Hyo-Sang Park; Youn-Ju Lee; Seong-Hwa Jeong; Tae-Geon Kwon
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 2.650

View more
  9 in total

1.  An interview with Matheus Melo Pithon.

Authors:  Matheus Melo Pithon; Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; David Normando; Carlos Flores-Mir; Dauro Douglas Oliveira
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 May-Jun

2.  Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

Authors:  Yassir A Yassir; Grant T McIntyre; Ahmed M El-Angbawi; David R Bearn
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2019-04-23       Impact factor: 2.079

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.  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

5.  A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments.

Authors:  Marcio Rodrigues de Almeida; Francisco Herrero; Amine Fattal; Amirparviz R Davoody; Ravindra Nanda; Flavio Uribe
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-06-07       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Implementation of post treatment critical evaluation improved the quality of orthodontic care in postgraduate orthodontic clinic: A 10 years comparative study.

Authors:  Rashmi Verma; Ashok Kumar Utreja; Satinder Pal Singh; Ashok Kumar Jena
Journal:  Indian J Dent       Date:  2015 Jul-Sep

7.  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

8.  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

9.  Canine retraction and anchorage loss self-ligating versus conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Qiaozhen Zhou; Abdul Azeem Amin Ul Haq; Liu Tian; Xiaofeng Chen; Kui Huang; Yu Zhou
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 2.757

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.