Transversal changes, space closure, and efficiency of conventional and self-ligating appliances

Yang, Xianrui; Xue, Chaoran; He, Ye; Zhao, Mengyuan; Luo, Maokang; Wang, Peiqi; Bai, Ding

doi:10.1007/s00056-017-0110-4

Cited by 22 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2 A review of well-designed RCTs (Randomized Control Trial) have only demonstrated that this system shortens chair time and produces less protrusion of the mandibular incisor, without mentioning the many benefits of SL brackets. 3 In addition, recent systematic reviews 4 have not shown any clinical advantages in arch expansion, space closure or orthodontic efficiency. To identify these benefits, it is necessary to compare passive SL brackets with conventional brackets to ascertain their true effect in the sagittal and transverse planes, and then match these findings with a control group.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of changes in the dental transverse and sagittal planes between patients treated with self-ligating and with conventional brackets

Moyano

Montagut²,

Perera³

et al. 2020

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Several advantages have been established regarding the efficiency of self-ligating brackets (SL). In spite of some controversy surrounding this question in the literature, clinical results confirm that “arch development” requires fewer extractions. Objective: The objective of this study was to compare changes in the transverse and sagittal planes in patients treated with conventional ligating brackets (CL)as well as in patients treated with SL brackets and oversized arches. Methods: A sample was selected from a pool of 300 consecutive cases treated by a single clinician: 51 patients with SL brackets and oversized wires, and 55 with CL brackets. These two groups were compared with a control group of 20 patients. All plaster models were scanned and dental landmarks were measured to identify changes from commencement (T0) to conclusion (T1) of treatment. Lateral cephalograms were analyzed for changes in the lower incisor (IMPA) and the first lower molar distal angulation (MAng). Intraoperator reliability was tested with linear regression analysis. To assure all groups were comparable at T0, an ANOVA test with a 95%confidence interval (CI) was performed for all values. To assess changes from T0 to T1 in all groups, a Student’s t-test with 95% CI was used. Finally, results from the three groups were compared using an ANOVA-test (95% CI) and a post-hoc test. Results: Increases in all the transverse variables were recorded in the two groups treated (SL and CL), except for the lower intercanine distance in the SL group. IMPA difference from T0 to T1 was higher in the CL group, and molar distal angulation (MAng) took place in the SL group. Conclusions: Self-ligating brackets with oversized arches and conventional ligating brackets showed increases in all variables in the transverse plane, except for the SL group at the mandibular intercanine distance. In comparison with the CL group, fewer different IMPA values were observed in the SL group, in which distal molar angulation occurred.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of changes in the dental transverse and sagittal planes between patients treated with self-ligating and with conventional brackets

Moyano

Montagut²,

Perera³

et al. 2020

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, by analyzing the findings of this study, the clinical advantages of SL brackets cannot be affirmed and are still unclear, according to recent systematic reviews. These reviews only showed advantages in SL brackets in shortened chair time and less protrusion of the mandibular incisor, but no benefits in arch expansion, space closure time or orthodontic efficiency could be demonstrated [2,3]. Hence, clinical research is mandatory to confirm current results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some advantages were described, such as faster movements, less chair time, and less extraction need. Recent systematic reviews describe only these advantages: Less time needed to ligate, less incisor protrusion, and greater transversal changes in the molar region [2,3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“In Vitro” Study About Variables that Influence in Arch Friction with Conventional and Self-Ligating Brackets

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many advantages have been described surrounding self-ligating (SL) brackets compared to metallic conventional ligating (CL) brackets, such as: Less total treatment time, alignment efficiency, patient comfort, plaque retention, and low friction. The objective of this in vitro simulation was to know the variables that affect arch displacement in CL and SL brackets—active (ASL) and passive (PSL)—and analyze if static friction values are affected by bracket design, arch wire section, kind of ligature, and use of a friction reducer agent (FRA) in a wet state. Larger values of static friction were found in CL with metallic ligature (ML) (8.01 ± 1.08 N/mm) and elastic ligature (EL) (6.96 ± 0.48 N/mm). Lower values were found in PSL brackets combined with FRA (0.58 ± 0.21 N/mm). The study was carried out using different stereographical models of a maxillary upper right quadrant with canine, first and second premolar, and first molar bonded brackets. A section of 25 mm of 0.019 × 0.025” stainless steel arch with a rectangular section (SS) and hybrid section (HY) was inserted into the different bracket models. Static friction values were collected using a universal test machine in wet conditions and testing the effect of a friction reducer agent (FRA). To assure the reliability of the study, different wire combinations were repeated after two weeks by the same operator and a linear analysis of regression was done. Each bracket model analysis—with the different wires, use of the FRA, and comparison among brackets in similar conditions—was done using an ANOVA test with a confidence interval of 95% and comparative Post-Hoc tests (LSD). In this in vitro simulation we found higher static friction values in CL compared to ASL and PSL. In PSL, lower values were achieved. CL brackets using ML showed the highest static friction values with a great variability. In this setting, the use of HY wires did not reduce static friction values in ASL and PSL, while in CL brackets with EL friction the values were reduced significantly. An FRA combined with ASL reduced significantly static friction values but not with PSL. In the case of CL, the FRA effect was higher with SS and better than with HY wires. ML values were similar to ASL static friction. The direct extrapolation of the results might be inaccurate, since all these findings should be tested clinically to be validated.

show abstract

“…To date, many studies have investigated the efficiency and clinical efficacy of SLB compared to CB through several methods, in an attempt to reach a conclusion, although these studies have varied greatly in methodology and results. [8][9][10] While current literature offers conclusions regarding friction and the efficiency of treatments with the use of SLB compared to CB, it does not present conclusive remarks regarding the periodontal health differences. Therefore, the objective of this article is to evaluate and compare the clinical periodontal effect between the use of SLB and CB.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They were first presented by Stolzenberg in 1935 and were discovered as an accessory of the Russell attachment fabricated in the 1930s; however, it was not until the last 20 years that they have had their greatest use. [4][5][6][7][8] Currently, different types of SLB are used during orthodontic treatment. The manufacturers and proponents of SLB claim that these Conflict of interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to published results.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Orthodontists constantly seek to reduce the duration of their provided treatments and the patient's time in the office. For this reason, different bracket systems are currently used in orthodontics; an example is selfligating brackets (SLB) which are believed to offer advantages over conventional brackets (CB). Objective: To evaluate and compare the clinical periodontal effect of CB and SLB through a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Material and Method: A search of the literature was carried out until December 2017, in the biomedical databases: PubMed, Embase, SciELO, ScienceDirect, SIGLE, LILACS, BBO, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The selection criteria of the studies were defined as such: randomized clinical trials, up to 5 years old and that report the clinical effects (probing depth, bleeding on probing, gingival index and plaque index) from the use of CB and SLB. The risk of study bias was analyzed through the Cochrane Handbook of systematic reviews of interventions. Results: The search strategy resulted in 12 articles, eight of which reported no difference in the reduction in probing depth, bleeding on probing, gingival index and plaque index (p>0.05) between CB and SLB. Conclusion: The literature reviewed suggests that there are no differences in the periodontal clinical effect among patients who received orthodontic treatment with CB or SLB.

show abstract

Transversal changes, space closure, and efficiency of conventional and self-ligating appliances

Cited by 22 publications

References 31 publications

Comparison of changes in the dental transverse and sagittal planes between patients treated with self-ligating and with conventional brackets

Comparison of changes in the dental transverse and sagittal planes between patients treated with self-ligating and with conventional brackets

“In Vitro” Study About Variables that Influence in Arch Friction with Conventional and Self-Ligating Brackets

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About