Literature DB >> 23299650

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

Ales Čelar1, Magdalena Schedlberger, Petra Dörfler, Michael Bertl.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Meta-analysis of differences between conventional and self-ligating brackets concerning pain during tooth movement, number of patient visits, total treatment duration, and ligation times.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Online search in Medline, Embase, and Central focused on randomized clinical trials and controlled clinical studies published between 1996 and 2012.
RESULTS: Four studies on pain met our inclusion criteria, two on the number of appointments, two on overall treatment time but none on ligation times. Pain levels did not differ significantly between patients treated with conventional or self-ligating brackets after 4 h, 24 h, 3 and 7 days. The number of appointments and total treatment times revealed no significant differences between self-ligating and conventional brackets.
CONCLUSION: The lack of significant overall effects apparent in this meta-analysis contradicts evidence-based statements on the advantages of self-ligating brackets over conventional ones regarding discomfort during initial orthodontic therapy, number of appointments, and total treatment time. Due to the limited number of studies included, further randomized controlled clinical trials are required to deliver more data and to substantiate evidence-based conclusions on differences between the two bracket types considering orthodontic pain, number of visits, treatment, and ligation times.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23299650     DOI: 10.1007/s00056-012-0116-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orofac Orthop        ISSN: 1434-5293            Impact factor:   1.938


  40 in total

1.  The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets.

Authors:  J Berger; F K Byloff
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  2001-05

2.  Self-ligating brackets: where are we now?

Authors:  N W T Harradine
Journal:  J Orthod       Date:  2003-09

Review 3.  Orthodontic pain: from causes to management--a review.

Authors:  Vinod Krishnan
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets.

Authors:  L Pizzoni; G Ravnholt; B Melsen
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Prospective survey of percutaneous injuries in orthodontic assistants.

Authors:  J A McNamara; R A Bagramian
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1999-01       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  Experience of pain during an orthodontic procedure.

Authors:  Marianne Bergius; Ulf Berggren; Stavros Kiliaridis
Journal:  Eur J Oral Sci       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.612

7.  Relationship between patient discomfort, appliance acceptance and compliance in orthodontic therapy.

Authors:  G M Doll; A Zentner; U Klages; H G Sergl
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 1.938

8.  RhCl3-assisted C-H and C-S bond scissions: isomeric self-association of organorhodium(iii) thiolato complex. synthesis, structure, and electrochemistry.

Authors:  Kausikisankar Pramanik; Ujjwal Das; Basab Adhikari; Deepak Chopra; Helen Stoeckli-Evans
Journal:  Inorg Chem       Date:  2007-12-28       Impact factor: 5.165

9.  Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system. A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  P S Fleming; A T Dibiase; G Sarri; R T Lee
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment.

Authors:  Simona Tecco; Michele D'Attilio; Stefano Tetè; Felice Festa
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2009-05-22       Impact factor: 3.075

View more
  8 in total

1.  The quality of orthodontic practice websites.

Authors:  J Parekh; D S Gill
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2014-05       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  Microbial complexes levels in conventional and self-ligating brackets.

Authors:  Ana Zilda Nazar Bergamo; Paulo Nelson-Filho; Marcela Cristina Damião Andrucioli; Cássio do Nascimento; Vinícius Pedrazzi; Mírian Aiko Nakane Matsumoto
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  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

4.  An interview with Greg J. Huang.

Authors: 
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2015 Nov-Dec

5.  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

6.  Stability of treatment with self-ligating brackets and conventional brackets in adolescents: a long-term follow-up retrospective study.

Authors:  Zhou Yu; Lin Jiaqiang; Chen Weiting; Yi Wang; MinLing Zhen; Zhenyu Ni
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2014-09-20       Impact factor: 2.151

7.  The Influence of Friction on Design of the Type of Bracket and Its Relation to OHRQoL in Patients Who Use Multi-Bracket Appliances: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

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

8.  Comparison of self-ligating Damon3 and conventional MBT brackets regarding alignment efficiency and pain experience: A randomized clinical trial.

Authors:  Arezoo Jahanbin; Nadia Hasanzadeh; Sara Khaki; Hooman Shafaee
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2019
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.