Effectiveness of treatment of adult patients with the straightwire technique and the lingual two-dimensional appliance

Abstract

The aim of this prospective study was to compare the outcome of orthodontic therapy using two different therapeutic strategies: the labial straightwire (SW) technique and the lingual two-dimensional (2D) technique on the lower dental arch. The sample included 50 subjects (39 females and 11 males) with a complete dentition and an Angle Class I malocclusion with crowding who were treated non-extraction. The subjects were divided into two groups: group A, consisted of 25 patients (19 females and 6 males), who were treated with the lingual 2D technique, and group B, 25 patients (20 females and 5 males) treated using the labial SW appliance (Roth system). Changes in the position of the lower incisors to the A-Po and mandibular lines were measured on cephalograms and those in the transverse and sagittal planes on individual sectors of the dental arch from 2D images of model casts obtained before and after the active phase of orthodontic treatment. Standard statistical methods were used for evaluation. Both methods (when used with appropriate indications) showed comparable results. The lingual 2D technique also represents an aesthetically favourable solution for adult patients.

Evaluation of Internet Information about Lingual Orthodontics Using DISCERN and JAMA Tools

“…Lingual orthodontic treatment usually is preferred by adult patients with high aesthetic expectations. As treatment mechanics continue to develop, the interest in this field continues to increase, although only slowly, due to its technical difficulties and high cost (14,15). Because of patients increasing demand of lingual orthodontics, and because, to our knowledge, there are no studies about internet information on lingual orthodontics, the purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of information on lingual orthodontics on the internet using DISCERN and JAMA scales.…”

Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances: systematic review and meta‐analysis of treatment effects

“…S1). After removal of duplicates and initial screening, 31 papers were assessed using the eligibility criteria, and 13 were included (Fig. S1; Tables and S2).…”

“…KHATTAB et al (31) used prefabricated wires for the labial group but individualized wires for the lingual group. On the other hand, SOLDANOVA et al (37) used wire sequences that differed in the material, size, and cross-section between the lingual and labial groups, which can affect the results (7) and introduce bias. The prominent premolar offset incorporated in the lingual wire, together with the small interbracket distance in the anterior region, might be responsible for the increased intercanine width (31).…”

“…KHATTAB et al(31) LOMBARDO et al(32) RAI et al(33) RAI et al(34) SHALISH et al(35) SOLDANOVA et al(36,37) VAN DER VEEN et al(38) VENKATESH et al(39) WU et al(40,41) KHATTAB et al(30) Summary of the risk of bias of the trials included in this review.…”

Lower Anterior Crowding Correction by a Convenient Lingual Method

“…Third‐order bents that allow torque control cannot be applied with these systems, and this makes them suitable for more simple class I cases where there is no need for absolute control of tooth movements. However, although these approaches produce satisfactory results when used in proper cases 5 and are less complicated compared with regular lingual systems, they still require special equipment and more complicated laboratory and/or clinical stages to be applied 4,6,7 …”