Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Machibya, Ferdinand Mabula; Bao, Xingfu; Zhao, Lihua; Hu, Min

doi:10.2319/041912-326.1

Cited by 24 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Recent reports showed that self-ligating brackets do not provide better anchorage control, especially with respect to less friction, which is believed to be obtained with self-ligating bracket systems. [4][5][6][7][8][9] The TPA has been widely used in orthodontics either with continuous or segmented arch mechanics to minimize anchorage loss and/or control rotation of the upper first molars. 1,3,[10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] Although TPA has been shown not to improve anchorage control during space closure, many clinicians still believe that the TPA alone can control anchorage during space closure in orthodontic extraction cases.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Alhadlaq

Alkhadra

El‐Bialy

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare anchorage condition in cases in which transpalatal arch was used to enhance anchorage in both continuous and segmented arch techniques. Materials and Methods: Twenty cases that required first premolar extraction for orthodontic treatment and transpalatal arch to enhance anchorage were included in this study. Ten cases were treated using the continuous arch technique, while the other 10 cases were treated using 0.019 3 0.025-inch TMA T-loops with posterior anchorage bend according to the Burstone and Marcotte description. Lateral cephalometric analysis of before and after canine retraction was performed using Ricketts analysis to measure the anteroposterior position of the upper first molar to the vertical line from the Pt point. Data were analyzed using an independent sample t-test.Results: There was a statistically significant forward movement of the upper first molar in cases treated by continuous arch mechanics (4.5 6 3.0 mm) compared with segmented arch mechanics (20.7 6 1.4 mm; P 5 .01). Conclusions:The posterior anchorage bend to T-loop used to retract the maxillary canine can enhance anchorage during maxillary canine retraction. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:380-385.)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Alhadlaq

Alkhadra

El‐Bialy

2015

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is no difference in anchorage between the groups and therefore self-ligating brackets do not help to increase anchorage 26 .…”

Section: Managing Anchoragementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The articles showed no difference in the length of treatment between self and non self-ligating brackets 9,16,17,18,26 .…”

Section: Length Of Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only a few isolated studies have reported greater incisor labial inclination with conventional 25 brackets or conversely more with self-ligating brackets 26 .…”

Section: Achieved Inclination Of the Mandibular Incisormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…-the severity of the Class II and crowding, the space between the teeth, treatment plans with extractions 17 ; -the initial condition (assessed via the PAR index) 26 .…”

Section: Length Of Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are self-ligating brackets an advantageous alternative for non-extraction treatments?

Gebeile-Chauty¹

2014

J Dentofacial Anom Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this nonsystematic review of the literature is to determine whether or not self-ligating brackets are an equally effective alternative to traditional brackets for non-extraction treatments. The agreed upon criteria are indications for extractions, the biomechanical approach, the stability of the treatment results, the iatrogenic effects and the ergonomics.The studies discuss arch expansion with the use of self-ligating brackets. One study mentions a lack of control of osseous management including tipping and buccal bone thickness in the lateral sectors. The mandibular incisor inclination that was obtained does not appear to be correlated to the type of bracket but rather to initial factors specific to the patient. We didn't find any study dealing with the long-term stability of the results.Regarding patients, self-ligating brackets do not reduce the pain, the number of extractions, the incidence of resorption or the risk for caries.Self-ligating brackets shortened the clinical time for an experienced practitioner but not the length of the time of comprehensive treatment and alignment. Some studies report an increase in cases of emergency. Finally, these brackets are more difficult to position.

show abstract

A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Cited by 24 publications

References 23 publications

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Anchorage condition during canine retraction using transpalatal arch with continuous and segmented arch mechanics

Are self-ligating brackets an advantageous alternative for non-extraction treatments?

A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About