PURPOSE: To analyze common values of bracket torque (Andrews, Roth, MBT, Ricketts) for their validity in achieving incisor inclinations that are considered normal by different cephalometric standards. METHODS: Using the equations developed in part 1 (eU1(BOP) = 90° - BT(U1) - TCA(U1) + α1 - α2 and eL1(BOP) = 90° - BT(L1) - TCA(L1) + β1 - β2) (abbreviations see part 1) and the mean values (± SD) obtained as statistical measures in parts 1 and 2 of the study (α1 and β1 [1.7° ± 0.7°], α2 [3.6° ± 0.3°], β2 [3.2° ± 0.4°], TCA(U1) [24.6° ± 3.6°] and TCA(L1) [22.9° ± 4.3°]) expected (= theoretically anticipated) values were calculated for upper and lower incisors (U1 and L1) and compared to targeted (= cephalometric norm) values. RESULTS: For U1, there was no overlapping between the ranges of expected and targeted values, as the lowest targeted value of (58.3°; Ricketts) was higher than the highest expected value (56.5°; Andrews) relative to the bisected occlusal plane (BOP). Thus all of these torque systems will aim for flatter inclinations than prescribed by any of the norm values. Depending on target values, the various bracket systems fell short by 1.8-5.5° (Andrews), 6.8-10.5° (Roth), 11.8-15.5° (MBT), or 16.8-20.5° (Ricketts). For L1, there was good agreement of the MBT system with the Ricketts and Björk target values (Δ0.1° and Δ-0.8°, respectively), and both the Roth and Ricketts systems came close to the Bergen target value (both Δ2.3°). Depending on target values, the ranges of deviation for L1 were 6.3-13.2° for Andrews (Class II prescription), 2.3°-9.2° for Roth, -3.7 to -3.2° for MBT, and 2.3-9.2° for Ricketts. CONCLUSIONS: Common values of upper incisor bracket torque do not have acceptable validity in achieving normal incisor inclinations. A careful selection of lower bracket torque may provide satisfactory matching with some of the targeted norm values.
PURPOSE: To analyze common values of bracket torque (Andrews, Roth, MBT, Ricketts) for their validity in achieving incisor inclinations that are considered normal by different cephalometric standards. METHODS: Using the equations developed in part 1 (eU1(BOP) = 90° - BT(U1) - TCA(U1) + α1 - α2 and eL1(BOP) = 90° - BT(L1) - TCA(L1) + β1 - β2) (abbreviations see part 1) and the mean values (± SD) obtained as statistical measures in parts 1 and 2 of the study (α1 and β1 [1.7° ± 0.7°], α2 [3.6° ± 0.3°], β2 [3.2° ± 0.4°], TCA(U1) [24.6° ± 3.6°] and TCA(L1) [22.9° ± 4.3°]) expected (= theoretically anticipated) values were calculated for upper and lower incisors (U1 and L1) and compared to targeted (= cephalometric norm) values. RESULTS: For U1, there was no overlapping between the ranges of expected and targeted values, as the lowest targeted value of (58.3°; Ricketts) was higher than the highest expected value (56.5°; Andrews) relative to the bisected occlusal plane (BOP). Thus all of these torque systems will aim for flatter inclinations than prescribed by any of the norm values. Depending on target values, the various bracket systems fell short by 1.8-5.5° (Andrews), 6.8-10.5° (Roth), 11.8-15.5° (MBT), or 16.8-20.5° (Ricketts). For L1, there was good agreement of the MBT system with the Ricketts and Björk target values (Δ0.1° and Δ-0.8°, respectively), and both the Roth and Ricketts systems came close to the Bergen target value (both Δ2.3°). Depending on target values, the ranges of deviation for L1 were 6.3-13.2° for Andrews (Class II prescription), 2.3°-9.2° for Roth, -3.7 to -3.2° for MBT, and 2.3-9.2° for Ricketts. CONCLUSIONS: Common values of upper incisor bracket torque do not have acceptable validity in achieving normal incisor inclinations. A careful selection of lower bracket torque may provide satisfactory matching with some of the targeted norm values.