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

Capistrano, Anderson; Cordeiro, Aldir; Siqueira, Danilo Furquim; Filho, Leopoldino Capelozza; Cardoso, Maurício de Almeida; Almeida–Pedrin, Renata Rodrigues de

doi:10.1590/2176-9451.19.3.139-157.sar

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Bóbbo 15 analyzed the torque of maxillary and mandibular incisor brackets, and Streva et al 14 Torque is related to the dental position desired at the end of treatment, and it must be individualized for the achievement of correct intercuspation, esthetics, and adequate function 14,16 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of torque angle of brackets from different brands

Anjos¹,

Pompeo²,

Anjos³

et al. 2015

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To measure torque angle values of brackets designed for canines, comparing it to their prescription values. Methods: One hundred and sixty maxillary (-2 o) and mandibular (-11 o) canine brackets of Roth prescription from the following brands were selected: Abzil, Eurodonto, Morelli and Ormco. The brackets were set in wax and images were obtained by scanning. Reference points were determined over these images, lines drawn and the torque angle was measured. The Student's t-test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used at a significance level of 5%. Results: For maxillary canine brackets, the medium torque angle values were: Abzil-0.93 o (± 0.88 o); Eurodonto 0.13 o (± 0.34 o); Morelli-2.56 o (± 0.50 o), and Ormco-1.16 o (± 1.27 o). For mandibular canine brackets, the values were: Abzil-11.76 o (± 0.40 o); Eurodonto-10.40 o (± 0.25 o); Morelli-11.18 o (± 0.56 o), and Ormco-11.36 o (± 0.30 o). For maxillary canine brackets, the brands Abzil, Morelli, and Ormco presented statistically diferente values from those indicated for prescription. For mandibular canine brackets, the brands Abzil, Eurodonto, and Ormco presented statistically different values from the prescribed ones. Conclusions: Some marketed brands present differences between the torque angle found in the brackets and those recommended in the prescription. However, these differences are clinically acceptable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of torque angle of brackets from different brands

Anjos¹,

Pompeo²,

Anjos³

et al. 2015

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To achieve this, several techniques and devices have been recommended, including surgical procedures, vibration stimulation, greater use of individualized arches and brackets, as well as prescribing exodontia less frequently. 1,2 Self-ligating brackets (SLB) are orthodontic devices that unlike conventional brackets (CB) do not require elastomeric ligation methods or ligature wires to keep the arch in place. They were first presented by Stolzenberg in 1935 and were discovered as an accessory of the Russell attachment fabricated in the 1930s; however, it was not until the last 20 years that they have had their greatest use.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the periodontal clinical effect between conventional and self-ligating brackets: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Orthodontists constantly seek to reduce the duration of their provided treatments and the patient's time in the office. For this reason, different bracket systems are currently used in orthodontics; an example is selfligating brackets (SLB) which are believed to offer advantages over conventional brackets (CB). Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical periodontal effect of CB and SLB through a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Material and Method: A search of the literature was carried out until December 2017, in the biomedical databases: PubMed, Embase, SciELO, ScienceDirect, SIGLE, LILACS, BBO, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The selection criteria of the studies were defined as such: randomized clinical trials, up to 5 years old and that report the clinical effects (probing depth, bleeding on probing, gingival index and plaque index) from the use of CB and SLB. The risk of study bias was analyzed through the Cochrane Handbook of systematic reviews of interventions. Results: The search strategy resulted in 12 articles, eight of which reported no difference in the reduction in probing depth, bleeding on probing, gingival index and plaque index (p>0.05) between CB and SLB. Conclusion: The literature reviewed suggests that there are no differences in the periodontal clinical effect among patients who received orthodontic treatment with CB or SLB.

show abstract

“…Transverse expansion with self-ligating systems is explained by low friction between the brackets and the archwires. 5 In the literature, some studies have indicated greater arch width increases with self-ligating brackets, 6 - 8 while other studies have shown no differences between self-ligating and conventional appliances. 9 - 11 It has been purported that the lower force produced by self-ligating brackets might lead to more stable treatment results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability comparison of two different dentoalveolar expansion treatment protocols

Atik

Taner

2017

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the longitudinal stability of the conventional straight-wire system after the use of a quad-helix appliance with Damon self-ligating system in patients with Class I malocclusion. Methods: 27 adolescent patients were evaluated at three different periods: pre-treatment (T1), post-treatment (T2) and three years post-treatment (T3). Group 1 included 12 patients (with a mean age of 14.65 year) treated with Damon 3MX bracket system; and Group 2 included 15 patients (with a mean age of 14.8 year) who underwent orthodontic treatment with Roth prescribed brackets after expansion with Quad-Helix appliance. Relapse was evaluated with dental cast examination and cephalometric radiograph tracings. Statistical analysis was performed with IBM-SPSS for Windows software, version 21 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). A p-value smaller than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There were significant increases in all transverse dental and postero-anterior measurements (except for UL6-ML mm in Group 1) with active treatment. There was some significant relapse in the long-term in inter-canine width in both groups and in the inter-first premolar width in Group 2 (p< 0.05). Significant decrease in all frontal measurements from T2 to T3 was seen for both groups. Upper and lower incisors significantly proclined in T1-T2 (p< 0.05), however no relapse was found for both groups. When two systems were compared, there was no significant difference for the long-term follow-up period. Conclusion: Conventional (quad-helix appliance with conventional brackets) and Damon systems were found similar with regard to the long-term incisor positions and transverse dimension changes of maxillary arch.

show abstract

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

Cited by 3 publications

References 11 publications

Assessment of torque angle of brackets from different brands

Assessment of torque angle of brackets from different brands

Comparing the periodontal clinical effect between conventional and self-ligating brackets: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Stability comparison of two different dentoalveolar expansion treatment protocols

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About