A multi-center randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 1: Treatment efficiency

Abstract

There was no clinically significant difference in treatment efficiency between treatment with a self-ligating bracket system and a conventional ligation system.

Failure patterns of different bracket systems and their influence on treatment duration: A retrospective cohort study

“…Only first-time failures for each bracket were assessed, because multiple failures of the same bracket might be a result of parafunction, detrimental habits, or flawed bonding protocol. 8 Finally, the duration of active treatment in months was extracted at the patient level and measured from the time of insertion to the removal of appliances.…”

“…As far as the pattern of failed brackets is concerned, significant differences were found according to tooth type, with canines being the least prone to failure, followed by central incisors (þ74% higher failure rate), lateral incisors (þ89% higher failure rate), and second premolars (þ219% higher failure rate; Table 4), which is in agreement with the patterns observed in other studies. 8,[14][15][16] Tooth-specific differences in the bracket failure rate have been attributed to the increased risk of moisture contamination at certain sites, increased masticatory loads, and larger amounts of aprismatic enamel. 13,17,18 The higher incisor bracket failure when compared with canines could possibly be explained by either increased activation forces as a result of anterior crowding or by increased mastication forces received during biting food.…”

“…4,5 Considerable focus has been placed in the past decades on enhancing the efficiency of orthodontic treatment through the stimulation of patient compliance, modification of orthodontic appliances or bonding techniques, and the use of various adjuncts. [6][7][8] However, existing evidence behind many of these measures is still lacking, and there is often insufficient support for their use to improve treatment efficiency. 9,10 Studies have shown that the bonding performance of orthodontic appliances differs depending on factors such as tooth type and position, type of bonding agents and curing methods, and bracket mesh types and materials as well as aging and attrition of the bond in oral conditions.…”

An interview with Greg J. Huang

“…The recent evidence on self-ligating brackets seems to indicate that they reduce chair time, but probably do not decrease alignment time or treatment time significantly. 1 - 8 Given this information, there is nothing wrong with using self-ligating brackets. However, I do believe we should be careful not to imply that they are associated with shorter treatment time or superior results, based on the current evidence.…”

Alterações dentoalveolares em adultos promovidas pelo uso de arco auxiliar de expansão em TMA avaliadas por meio de tomografias computadorizadas

“…Respeitando o controle de torque aplicado pelo fio de nivelamento presente nesta fase do tratamento ortodôntico, obteve-se movimento de inclinação controlada dentro do osso alveolar (AKIN et al, 2014, BAYSAL et al, 2013, BRUNETTO et al, 2013, GARIB et al, 2014b, GRAVINA et al, 2013, LEE et al, 2015. A justificava de trabalhar com o arco auxiliar de expansão em TMA (mais flexibilidade que o aço, com liberação de força mais gradual e com formabilidade) associado a um arco de nivelamento retangular e termoativado está ligada as informações destes trabalhos citados, tendo o controle de movimentos de inclinação vestibular pelo fio retangular, embora com folga no "slot" dos bráquetes, para permitir acomodação e remodelação durante o movimento (O'DYWER et al, 2016).…”