Introduction: The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to assess the effects and efficiency of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional brackets. A secondary purpose was to identify the pretreatment factors associated with the choice of self-ligating or conventional brackets.
Methods: The subjects were treated by 2 private practitioners who used both self-ligating and conventional brackets in their practices. The self-ligating subjects were consecutively identified (treatment completed between January 2011 and April 2012), and then an age- and sex-matched control group was chosen from the same office. The outcome measures were changes in arch dimensions, changes in mandibular incisor inclinations, final peer assessment rating (PAR) scores, percentages of PAR reduction, overall treatment times, total number of visits, and number of emergency visits. All cast and cephalometric measurements were performed on digital records in a blinded manner. Two calibrated assessors measured the PAR scores.
Results: The final sample comprised 74 patients from clinician 1 and 34 patients from clinician 2. The practitioners had significant differences for several treatment parameters; therefore, the data from the 2 clinicians were analyzed separately. For clinician 1, no significant differences were observed between the self-ligating and conventional groups, other than increased arch length in the self-ligating group. The self-ligation patients treated by clinician 2 demonstrated significant increases in transverse dimensions, lower percentages of reduction in PAR scores, shorter treatment times, fewer visits, and more wire-sliding emergencies than the conventional bracket group.
Conclusions: Although some significant findings were observed, the small sample and the lack of consistent findings between the 2 clinicians made it difficult to draw strong conclusions.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.12.029 | DOI Listing |
Cureus
October 2024
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Kothiwal Dental College and Research Centre, Moradabad, IND.
Introduction: This study aimed to perform a comparative analysis of stresses and displacements with incremental torque on the maxillary incisors and surrounding cortical bone using conventional metal brackets with rectangular slots and passive self-ligating brackets with square slots using finite element analysis (FEA).
Materials And Methods: An in vitro FEA study was conducted, in which a three-dimensional (3D) model of the maxilla was built using ANSYS software version 18 (ANSYS Inc., Canonsburg, PA).
J Orthod Sci
September 2024
School of Dentistry, University of Dundee, UK.
Objective: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of treatment with customized compared to noncustomized fixed orthodontic appliances.
Method: A comprehensive search was performed using 13 databases until February 20, 2024. Study eligibility criteria were based on studies that compared orthodontic treatment with customized fixed appliances (labial or lingual) with noncustomized appliances.
Rev Cient Odontol (Lima)
September 2024
Research Group in Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Universidad Científica del Sur. Lima, Perú.
Objective: To compare the perception of Peruvian orthodontists regarding treatments with self-ligating and conventional brackets.
Methods: A questionnaire was applied to 168 orthodontic specialists (53% men, average professional experience 9 years) to evaluate preferences for treatment phases, benefits of patient consultation according to the type of bracket, experience with self-ligating brackets, and demographic and clinical characteristics (sex, years of experience, volume of care and length of experience).
Objectives: To compare the accuracy and chair time of self-ligating brackets using direct bonding, traditional indirect bonding (IB), and computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) IB techniques after orthodontic leveling and alignment.
Materials And Methods: Forty-five patients were randomly assigned to three bonding groups (G1 [n = 15], G2 [n = 15], and G3 [n = 15]). Evaluation after the alignment and leveling phases used two parameters of the objective grading system of the American Board of Orthodontics for root parallelism and posterior marginal ridges, assessed using panoramic radiographies (PR I and PR II), a digital model, and a plaster model.
J Pharm Bioallied Sci
July 2024
Senior Resident, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Government Dental College and Hospital, ESI Road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!