Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system

Vajaria, Rohini; BeGole, Ellen A.; Kusnoto, Budi; Galang, Maria Therese S; Obrez, Aleš

doi:10.2319/071910-420.1

Cited by 50 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Between the two groups, there was a slight absolute mean difference of 0.33 mm increase in the conventional group arch width; however, this was not statistically significant (Table 3). In contrast to our findings, both Pandis et al 21 and Vajaria et al 22 found a greater intermolar arch width increase in patients treated with the Damon system than in the conventional edgewise group. This difference might be partly explained in the Pandis et al article by the use of rectangular Cu-NiTi arch wires in the Damon group, while using only round NiTi in the conventional group.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with Damon and conventional brackets: A retrospective analysis

Shook

Kim

Burnheimer

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the effect of Damon self-ligating and conventional bracket systems on buccal corridor widths and areas. Materials and Methods: A retrospective sample of consecutively treated patients using either conventional (CG, n 5 45) or Damon self-ligating (SL, n 5 39) brackets was analyzed to determine any differences in buccal corridor widths and areas both within and between groups. Pretreatment and posttreatment frontal photographs were transferred to Photoshop CC, standardized using intercanthal width, and linear and area measurements were performed with tools in Photoshop CC. Ratios were then calculated for statistical analysis. Relationships between arch widths and buccal corridors were also examined. Results: There were no significant differences in the posttreatment intercanine or intermolar widths either within or between the CG and SL groups. There were no significant differences in any buccal corridor width or area measurement either within or between the CG and SL groups. There were strong correlations with the intercanine width and the corresponding buccal corridor smile width measurements. There was an inverse correlation with the buccal corridor area in relation to the canine and the total smile width. Conclusions: It is likely that posttreatment increases in arch width can be seen in patients treated with either a conventional bracket system or the Damon system. It is highly unlikely that there is any significant difference in buccal corridor width or area in patients treated with the Damon selfligating system or a conventional bracket system. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:655-660.)

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with Damon and conventional brackets: A retrospective analysis

Shook

Kim

Burnheimer

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Their results were very similar to those obtained in the current study. Similar to our results, Vajaria et al 5 and Jiang and Fu 7 indicated that both the conventional and Damon bracket systems cause labial inclination of the incisors. These results emphasize that two different treatment systems proclined maxillary and mandibular incisors in a similar manner, which agrees with the results of our study.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…In both systems, the arch widths were significantly larger after the treatment (Table 4). Pandis et al 9,13 and Vajaria et al 5 reported greater intermolar arch width increases in patients treated with the Damon system than in conventional treatment groups. However, these studies did not use active expansion appliances before fixed-appliance therapy in the conventional group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Vajaria et al 5 emphasized that ideally the same manufacturer and slot size should be used when comparing conventional and self-ligating bracket systems. We used the same bracket slot size and archwire sequences in both treatment systems to ensure meaningful results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the basis of this idea, conventional and self-ligating brackets have been compared regarding maxillary dentoalveolar expansion in several studies. [5][6][7][8] Only one study employed a rapid maxillary expansion appliance before straightwire mechanics in the conventional bracket group. 8 However, no study has compared the application of a conventional straight-wire system after the use of a quad-helix appliance with application of the Damon system in patients with a Class I malocclusion and a dentally constricted maxillary arch.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients

Atik¹,

Ciğer²

2014

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate two different treatment systems with regard to incisor position, transverse dimension changes in maxillary arch, changes in maxillary molar inclinations, clinical periodontal parameters, and pain intensity in patients with a Class I malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Seventeen patients (with a mean age of 14.5 years) underwent orthodontic treatment with the Roth prescribed edgewise bracket systems after expanding the maxillary arch with a quad-helix appliance, and 16 patients (with a mean age of 14.8 years) underwent orthodontic treatment with the Damon 3MX bracket system. Each subject's lateral cephalometric and posteroanterior radiographs and dental casts were obtained at the beginning of the treatment and after debonding. In addition to these, the periodontal index and pain scores were taken. Results: Cephalometric data showed that in both treatment systems, overjet value decreased and maxillary and mandibular incisors proclined. Posteroanterior measurements demonstrated a greater increase in the maxillary molar inclination in the Damon group. Significant increase of maxillary intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths was shown in both systems. Periodontal index and pain score changes between different observation periods were the same. Conclusions: The conventional and Damon systems were found similar with regard to the incisor position, transverse dimension changes in maxillary arch, clinical periodontal parameters, and pain intensity. The only significant difference was that the Damon system inclined the maxillary molars more buccally than the conventional group. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:615-622.)

show abstract

Stabilität kieferorthopädischer Behandlungsergebnisse im unteren Zahnbogen nach Nonextraktionstherapie im Vergleich zu Extraktionstherapie der ersten Prämolaren unter Verwendung von passiven selbstligierenden Brackets

Sayahpour,

Lau,

Eslami

et al. 2023

J Orofac Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aimed to evaluate the effects of lower premolar extraction on posttreatment stability one year following fixed orthodontic treatment with passive self-ligating brackets (Damon system, Ormco, Orange, CA, USA). Methods All patients were treated with fixed orthodontic appliances using passive self-ligating brackets (Damon). For retention, removable Hawley retainers were used. Two groups of patients were included in the study. Each group consisted of 23 patients: group Ex consisted of 10 male and 13 female patients (13.4 ± 1.6 years old) with extraction of lower first premolars and group NonEx consisted of 11 male and 12 female patients (13.4 ± 3.9 years old) without dental extractions. The patients’ dental models and photographs were assessed at T0 (pretreatment), T1 (the end of active orthodontic treatment: 3.3 ± 1.0 years in the Ex and 2.3 ± 0.8 years in the NonEx group) and at T2 (1 year posttreatment). All lower casts were scanned and the following dental parameters were recorded and compared between the two groups: intercanine width (ICW), anterior arch width (AAW), intermolar width (IMW), Little’s irregularity index (LII) and gingival recessions. Results An increase in ICW (group Ex: 1.20 ± 2.51 mm and group NonEx: 0.84 ± 1.48 mm) by the end of active treatment (T1; P < 0.05), as well as a relapse regarding the ICW (group Ex: −0.1 ± 0.47 mm and group NonEx: −67% ± 0.38 mm) one year post-treatment (T2) were recorded in the samples. Relapse in the non-extraction group was statistically and clinically significant, whereas ICW values remained relatively stable in the extraction group during the posttreatment period (T1–T2). The irregularity index decreased during treatment (group Ex: −8.79 ± 6.36 mm and group NonEx: −5.24 ± 2.99 mm) and relapsed in both groups (group Ex: 0.57 ± 90 mm and group NonEx: 0.27 ± 0.53). The rate of relapse in LII was correlated to the relapse rate of ICW. A reduction of IMW was recorded in the Ex group (−1.89 ± 1.82 mm) during active treatment (P < 0.05), which remained stable 1 year posttreatment. AAW increased in both groups (group Ex: 2.77 ± 1.77 mm and group NonEx: 1.77 ± 2.04 mm) throughout active treatment and remained stable at T2. Conclusion Intergroup comparison revealed that ICW remained stable 1 year posttreatment in the Ex group, whereas high relapse of ICW was recorded in the NonEx group. Furthermore, risk of a relapse of LII appears to be higher in cases with a relapse of the ICW.

show abstract

Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system

Cited by 50 publications

References 11 publications

Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with Damon and conventional brackets: A retrospective analysis

Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with Damon and conventional brackets: A retrospective analysis

An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients

Stabilität kieferorthopädischer Behandlungsergebnisse im unteren Zahnbogen nach Nonextraktionstherapie im Vergleich zu Extraktionstherapie der ersten Prämolaren unter Verwendung von passiven selbstligierenden Brackets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About