Labio-lingual root control of lower anterior teeth and canines obtained by active and passive self-ligating brackets

Cattaneo, Paolo M.; Salih, Raaid A; Melsen, Birte

doi:10.2319/071212-575.1

Cited by 27 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most studies have depicted mandibular incisor proclination in both groups with no statistical difference [Jiang and Fu, 2008;Scott et al, 2008;Pandis et al, 2010], once again indicating that the mechanism for relieving crowding involves incisor proclination and transverse expansion through tipping of posterior teeth, which is similar for conventional and self-ligating brackets. Also, another study using CBCT to compare the labiolingual inclination of mandibular incisors relative to the occlusal plane between active and passive self-ligating brackets confirmed a significant proclination of mandibular anterior teeth, thereby rejecting the claim of torque control by self-ligating systems [Cattaneo et al, 2013]. The meta-analysis including three of these studies showed that self-ligating brackets had 1.5 degrees less proclination that was statistically significant, although it may not be a clinically significant change [Chen et al, 2010].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Retrospective investigation of the effects and efficiency of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Anand

Turpin

Jumani

et al. 2015

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Retrospective Investigation of the Effects and Efficiency of Self-ligating and Conventional BracketsMegha AnandChairperson of the Supervisory Committee: Greg J. Huang Department of Orthodontics Introduction: Marketing strategies for self-ligating brackets have focused on less need for extractions and faster treatment. Recent meta-analyses have not found these claims to be well supported, but they point out limitations of the current evidence. These meta-analyses also conclude that additional, well-designed studies are indicated to improve our evidence base. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study is to assess the effects and efficiency of treatment with self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. A secondary purpose is to identify any pretreatment malocclusion characteristics associated with choice of either self-ligating or conventional brackets. Methods: Patients treated in the private offices of two practitioners who simultaneously used both self-ligating and conventional brackets were selected for this study. The self-ligating subjects were selected first, and for each subject, an age and gender matched subject was chosen from the respective office. The self-ligation subjects were consecutively treated adolescents and young adults (11-25 years-old) who completed comprehensive fixed appliance therapy between January 1, 2011 and April 31, 2012. Patients with craniofacial anomalies, surgical treatment, treatment with arch expansion using expanders, interdisciplinary treatment, and incomplete records were excluded. The outcome measures were changes in the intercanine width, intermolar width, and arch length for both arches, change in mandibular incisor inclination, final PAR score, percent PAR reduction, overall treatment time, total number of visits, number of emergencies, number of broken brackets, and other emergencies such as a wire sliding to one side or the loss of ligation. All measurements were performed on digital models or digital lateral cephalograms in a blinded manner. PAR scores were measured by two calibrated assessors and the average of the two scores were used. Data were analyzed using the independent sample t-test, chi-square or fisher exact test and linear regression analysis. Results: The final sample comprised 74 patients from Clinician 1, and 34 patients from Clinician 2. The two clinicians exhibited significant differences in treatment duration, as well as in treatment strategies, such as the use of the SureSmile technique. Therefore, the decision was made not to pool the data from the two offices. For Clinician 1, no significant differences were observed between self-ligating and conventional brackets for the outcomes described above, other than increased arch length in both arches in the self-ligating group. The self-ligation patients treated by Clinician 2 demonstrated a significant increase in transverse dimension, less percent reduction in PAR score, less treatment time, fewer visits, and more wire sliding emergencies compared to the conventional bracke...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Retrospective investigation of the effects and efficiency of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Anand

Turpin

Jumani

et al. 2015

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While it is clear that CBCT scans can accurately capture the dentoalveolar complex in 3D, it is best to be selective about what cases may benefit from CBCT scans for assessing boundary conditions. 85,86 These include cases presenting with clinically noticeable thin alveolar bone phenotypes that may not tolerate significant labio-or buccolingual displacements (Figure 7); cases with pre-existing periodontal disease; cases requiring orthodontic tooth movements that extend beyond pre-treatment alveolar boundaries; and cases where a tooth may need to be translocated past another tooth or obstruction (Figure 8). Precise information on alveolar boundary conditions may also be helpful in treatment planning cases that require moving teeth close to the alveolar boundaries such as in borderline non-extraction cases or in situations where teeth are being decompensated, such as commonly is performed in orthognathic surgery cases.…”

Section: Utilization Of Cbct For Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes Diagmentioning

confidence: 99%

CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use

Kapila

Nervina

2015

Dentomaxillofacial Radiology

304

222

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since its introduction into dentistry in 1998, CBCT has become increasingly utilized for orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and research. The utilization of CBCT for these purposes has been facilitated by the relative advantages of three-dimensional (3D) over two-dimensional radiography. Despite many suggested indications of CBCT, scientific evidence that its utilization improves diagnosis and treatment plans or outcomes has only recently begun to emerge for some of these applications. This article provides a comprehensive and current review of key studies on the applications of CBCT in orthodontic therapy and for research to decipher treatment outcomes and 3D craniofacial anatomy. The current diagnostic and treatment planning indications for CBCT include impacted teeth, cleft lip and palate and skeletal discrepancies requiring surgical intervention. The use of CBCT in these and other situations such as root resorption, supernumerary teeth, temporomandibular joint (TMJ) pathology, asymmetries and alveolar boundary conditions should be justified on the basis of the merits relative to risks of imaging. CBCT has also been used to assess 3D craniofacial anatomy in health and disease and of treatment outcomes including that of root morphology and angulation; alveolar boundary conditions; maxillary transverse dimensions and maxillary expansion; airway morphology, vertical malocclusion and obstructive sleep apnoea; TMJ morphology and pathology contributing to malocclusion; and temporary anchorage devices. Finally, this article utilizes findings of these studies and current voids in knowledge to provide ideas for future research that could be beneficial for further optimizing the use of CBCT in research and the clinical practice of orthodontics.

show abstract

“…Al escoger entre los diferentes tipos de brackets auto-ligado activos o Pasivos, la evidencia nos muestra que hay una mayor variación entre la inclinación más pronunciada de los dientes anteriores después del tratamiento en el bracket autoligado pasivo. (19) Otro estudio que compara los diferentes tipos brackets auto-ligados como: Profile views of Time2™, In-Ovation R™, Speed™, and Damon3™, demostraron que el diseño del bracket auto-ligado (pasivo frente al activo) es la variable más importante al ser la responsable de la resistencia al movimiento generado (fricción), en los brackets pasivamente ligados se observó que hubo disminución en la fricción (Fig. 4); pero, esta disminución puede deberse por la falta del control en el sistema de ligadura por los brackets auto-ligados activamente.…”

Section: Brackets Auto-ligados Pasivos Vs Activosunclassified

Brackets Autoligados vs Convencionales: Una Revisión Basada en 15 Años De Evidencia

Lazo¹,

Alarcón²

2019

EOC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Labio-lingual root control of lower anterior teeth and canines obtained by active and passive self-ligating brackets

Cited by 27 publications

References 27 publications

Retrospective investigation of the effects and efficiency of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Retrospective investigation of the effects and efficiency of self-ligating and conventional brackets

CBCT in orthodontics: assessment of treatment outcomes and indications for its use

Brackets Autoligados vs Convencionales: Una Revisión Basada en 15 Años De Evidencia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About