Literature DB >> 23910199

Comparison of maxillary arch dimensional changes with passive and active self-ligation and conventional brackets in the permanent dentition: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial.

Padhraig S Fleming1, Robert T Lee, Valeria Marinho, Ama Johal.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare maxillary arch dimensional and inclination changes during alignment with conventional brackets and self-ligation.
METHODS: Ninety-six patients, ages 16 years and above, were included in this multicenter, 3-group parallel randomized trial. The main outcome measures were changes in maxillary intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar dimensions, and molar and incisor inclination changes. The patients were randomly allocated in permuted blocks of 12 subjects into 3 equal groups with the allocations concealed in opaque sealed envelopes. Each participant underwent alignment with a standard Damon Q (Ormco, Orange, Calif) wire sequence for a minimum of 34 weeks. Blinding of clinicians and patients was not possible. Data were analyzed on a per-protocol basis, since losses to follow-up were minimal.
RESULTS: Complete data were obtained from 87 subjects. Bracket type had no significant effect on any of the transverse dimensional changes. No difference in molar inclination was found between passive self-ligation and conventional brackets (0.67°; 95% CI, -2.24, 3.58; P = 0.65) or active self-ligation (0.91°; 95% CI, -1.95, 3.78; P = 0.53). Similarly, incisor inclination changes with the Damon Q could not be differentiated from those developing with either conventional system (0.44°; 95% CI, -1.93, 2.8; P = 0.71) or In-Ovation C (-0.22°; 95% CI, -2.58, 2.14; P = 0.85). No harms were encountered.
CONCLUSIONS: No difference in the arch dimensional or inclination changes during alignment can be expected between conventional brackets and either active or passive self-ligation.
Copyright © 2013 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23910199     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.012

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


  10 in total

1.  Three-dimensional digital cast analysis of the effects produced by a passive self-ligating system.

Authors:  Megan B Lineberger; Lorenzo Franchi; Lucia H S Cevidanes; Luis T Huanca Ghislanzoni; James A McNamara
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2016-02-03       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets : A cone-beam computed tomography study.

Authors:  Isil Aras; Idil Unal; Gencer Huniler; Aynur Aras
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2018-04-12       Impact factor: 1.938

Review 3.  Differences between active and passive self-ligating brackets for orthodontic treatment : Systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  Xianrui Yang; Yiruo He; Tian Chen; Mengyuan Zhao; Yinqiu Yan; Hongzhe Wang; Ding Bai
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2017-02-21       Impact factor: 1.938

4.  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

5.  An interview with Greg J. Huang.

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

6.  From conventional to self-ligating bracket systems: is it possible to aggregate the experience with the former to the use of the latter?

Authors:  Anderson Capistrano; Aldir Cordeiro; Danilo Furquim Siqueira; Leopoldino Capelozza Filho; Mauricio de Almeida Cardoso; Renata Rodrigues de Almeida-Pedrin
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2014 May-Jun

7.  Buccolingual Inclination Effects of Self-Ligating and Conventional Premolar Brackets: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study.

Authors:  Sabahat Yazıcıoğlu; A Alper Öz; A Zeynep Öz; Nursel Arıcı; Mete Özer; Selim Arıcı
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2020-05-22

8.  The effect of perturbations on resistance to sliding in second-order moments comparing two different bracket types.

Authors:  Justin K Wong; Dan L Romanyk; Roger W Toogood; Giseon Heo; Jason P Carey; Paul W Major
Journal:  J Dent Biomech       Date:  2014-11-04

9.  Mandibular changes during initial alignment with SmartClip self-ligating and conventional brackets: A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Mevlut Celikoglu; Mehmet Bayram; Metin Nur; Dogan Kilkis
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2015-03-19       Impact factor: 1.372

10.  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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.