Alterations in plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation promoted by treatment with self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate, comparatively, the periodontal response during orthodontic treatment performed with self-ligating and conventional brackets. METHODS: Sixteen Caucasian individuals of both sexes, aged between 12 and 16 years old and in permanent dentition were selected. Eight individuals were treated with conventional brackets installed on the lower dental arch and self-ligating brackets on the upper arch. Another eight individuals received self-ligating brackets in the lower arch and conventional brackets in the upper arch. The subjects received material and instructions for oral hygiene. Visible plaque index (VPI), gingival bleeding index (GBI) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were evaluated just after installation of orthodontic appliances, and 30, 60 and 180 days later. Mann-Whitney test was used to compare differences between groups (self-ligating and conventional), two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's test was used to assess CAL at each site of each tooth. Significance level was set at 5%. RESULTS: No significant changes were found with regard to the assessed parameters (VPI, GBI and CAL) in either one of the systems. CONCLUSION: No significant changes were found with regard to the periodontal response to orthodontic treatment for the variables assessed and between subjects receiving passive self-ligating and conventional brackets. All individuals had received oral hygiene instructions and had their periodontal conditions monitored.

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

“…(Figure 1) Characteristics and results of studies The number of patients ranged between 16 and 100 in the included studies with a follow-up time of between 1 month and 6 months. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] Nine studies 13,15,16,[19][20][21][22][23][24] reported patients aged between 13.3 and 20.15 years. Nine 13,15-17,19-23 reported that the total number of patients in relation to their gender (men and women) was 175 and 242, respectively.…”

“…Nine 13,15-17,19-23 reported that the total number of patients in relation to their gender (men and women) was 175 and 242, respectively. Eleven studies [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] reported that the age of patients ranged between 11 and 30 years. The countries where the studies were conducted were Brazil, 13,14 Turkey, 15,17,[19][20][21] China, 16,24 Argentina, 18 Italy 22 and Croatia.…”

“…In two studies 15,22 a control group was used and in one study 13 a group of active self-ligating brackets and a passive selfligating bracket were considered. (Table 1) Regarding the evaluated periodontal clinical parameters probing depth was reported in five of the studies, 15,16,19,21,24 bleeding on probing was reported in five studies, 13,15,16,20,21 gingival index was reported in seven studies, [13][14][15][16]19,20,24 and plaque index was reported in eight studies; [13][14][15][16][19][20][21]24 which ranged from -0.02 a 0.72mm, -0.24 a 0.33mm, -0.4 a 1.17mm and from -0.61 a 1.37mm respectively. (Table 1) Analysis of the studies' risk of bias All studies 13-24 showed a high risk of bias.…”

“…Bleeding on probing: -Bleeding on probing was determined in four studies 13,15,16,20 revealing that there was no significant difference. (Figure 4) Gingival index: -The gingival index was determined in seven studies [13][14][15][16]19,20,24 revealing that there was no significant difference. ( Figure 5)…”

“…Plaque index: -The plaque index was determined in eight studies [13][14][15][16][19][20][21]24 revealing that there was no significant difference. (Figure 6)…”