OBJECTIVES: To compare the failure pattern of four different bracket types and to assess its effect on treatment duration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 78 white patients (28 male, 50 female) with a mean age of 12.6 years were included in this retrospective cohort study and treated for a mean period of 30.6 months. The patients were treated in a private practice with stainless steel conventionally ligated brackets, ceramic conventionally ligated brackets, stainless steel self-ligating brackets, or nickel-free self-ligating brackets. The loss of at least one bracket during the course of treatment was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards survival analyses and generalized linear regression. RESULTS: The overall bracket failure rate at the tooth level was 14.1% (217 brackets), with significant differences according to tooth type (between 8.0%-23.4%) and bracket type (between 11.2%-20.0%). After taking confounders into account, patients treated with ceramic brackets lost more brackets (hazard ratio = 1.62; 95% confidence interval = 1.14-2.29; P = .007) than patients with stainless steel brackets. On average, treatment time increased by 0.6 months (95% confidence interval = 0.21-1.05; P = .004) for each additional failed bracket. CONCLUSIONS: Bracket failure was more often observed with ceramic brackets and was associated with increased treatment duration.
OBJECTIVES: To compare the failure pattern of four different bracket types and to assess its effect on treatment duration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 78 white patients (28 male, 50 female) with a mean age of 12.6 years were included in this retrospective cohort study and treated for a mean period of 30.6 months. The patients were treated in a private practice with stainless steel conventionally ligated brackets, ceramic conventionally ligated brackets, stainless steel self-ligating brackets, or nickel-free self-ligating brackets. The loss of at least one bracket during the course of treatment was analyzed with Cox proportional hazards survival analyses and generalized linear regression. RESULTS: The overall bracket failure rate at the tooth level was 14.1% (217 brackets), with significant differences according to tooth type (between 8.0%-23.4%) and bracket type (between 11.2%-20.0%). After taking confounders into account, patients treated with ceramic brackets lost more brackets (hazard ratio = 1.62; 95% confidence interval = 1.14-2.29; P = .007) than patients with stainless steel brackets. On average, treatment time increased by 0.6 months (95% confidence interval = 0.21-1.05; P = .004) for each additional failed bracket. CONCLUSIONS:Bracket failure was more often observed with ceramic brackets and was associated with increased treatment duration.
Authors: Kurt Popowich; Brian Nebbe; Giseon Heo; Kenneth E Glover; Paul W Major Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Isabela Vasconcelos Barbosa; Victor de Miranda Ladewig; Renata Rodrigues Almeida-Pedrin; Mauricio Almeida Cardoso; Joel Ferreira Santiago Junior; Ana Claudia de Castro Ferreira Conti Journal: Prog Orthod Date: 2018-05-01 Impact factor: 2.750
Authors: Haris Khan; Samer Mheissen; Ayesha Iqbal; Ali Raza Jafri; Mohammad Khursheed Alam Journal: Biomed Res Int Date: 2022-01-11 Impact factor: 3.411