İskeletsel Sınıf 1 Hastalarda Damon ve Konvansiyonel Braket Sistemlerinin Dentoalveoler Yapılar ve Gülümseme Estetiği Üzerine Etkilerinin Karşılaştırılması

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı hafif ya da orta seviyede çapraşıklığı olan İskeletsel Sınıf I malokluzyonlu hastaların tedavilerinde kullanılan Damon braketler ile konvansiyonel braketlerin dişsel, yumuşak dokular ve gülümseme estetiği üzerine etkilerini retrospektif olarak karşılaştırmaktır.Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu retrospektif çalışmada ortalama yaşları 15,4 olan 30 hastanın tedavi öncesi T1 ve sonrası T2 lateral sefalometrik radyografileri, dental modelleri ve ağız dışı gülümseme fotoğrafları kullanıldı. On beş hasta Grup 1 pasif Damon braket ve Damon ark telleri ile diğer on beş hasta ise Grup 2 konvansiyonel MBT McLaughlin. Bennett,Trevisi sistem braketler ve ark telleri ile tedavi edilmiştir. Lateral sefalometrik radyografiler üzerinde açısal ve doğrusal ölçümler ile sert doku ve yumuşak doku değişimleri incelendi. T1 ve T2 dönemlerinde alınan alçı modeller tarandı ve bunlardan elde edilen dijital modeller üzerinde ölçümler yapıldı. Her hastanın T1 ve T2 dönemlerinde alınan ağız dışı gülümseme fotoğrafları standardize edildi ve doğrusal ölçümler yapıldı. Bulgular: Gruplar arasında hastaların; cinsiyet dağılımı, kronolojik yaş ve başlangıçtaki sefalometrik değerleri benzerdi. Her iki grupta da alt ve üst keser diş açılarının istatistiksel olarak anlamlı miktarda arttı ancak gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık yoktu p>0,05 . Yumuşak doku profil ölçümlerindeki değişiklikler gruplar arasında benzer bulundu p>0,005 . Çalışma grupları dijital dental ölçümler açısından istatistiksel olarak benzerdi p>0.005 . Gülümseme estetiği parametreleri açısından gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık yoktu p>0,05 .Sonuç: Damon ve konvansiyonel braket sisteminin tedavi etkileri ve klinik etkinliği benzerdir

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Damon sistem, Konvansiyonel sistem, Sınıf I malokluzyon, Gülümseme estetiği

Comparison of the Effects of Damon and Conventional Bracket Systems on Dentoalveolar Structures and Smile Esthetics in Skeletal Class I Patients

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to retrospectively compare the effects of Damon brackets and conventional brackets used in the treatment of Angle Class I malocclusion patients with mild or moderate crowding on dental, soft tissues and smile aesthetics.Material and Methods: In this retrospective study, pre-treatment T1 and post-treatment T2 lateral cephalometric radiographs, dental casts and extra-oral smile photographs of 30 patients with a mean age of 15.4 years were used. Fifteen of the patients Group 1 were treated with passive Damon braces and Damon arch wires while the other 15 patients Group 2 were treated with conventional MBT McLaughlin. Bennett, Trevisi system braces and arch wires. Hard and soft tissue changes were evaluated on lateral cephalometric radiographic images with angular and linear measurements. The dental casts taken in the T1 and T2 periods were scanned and measurements were made on the digital models obtained from them. Extraoral smile photos of each patients which were taken on T1 and T2 time periods were standardized and linear measurements were performed. Results: Gender distribution, chronological age, and initial cephalometric values of the patients were similar between the groups p> 0.05 . The upper and lower incisor angles significantly increased in both of the groups but there was no significant difference between the groups p>0.005 . Changes in soft tissue profile measurements were found to be similar between the groups p>0.005 . The study groups were statisticaly similar in terms of digital dental measurements p>0.005 . No statisticaly significant difference was determined between the groups in terms of smile aesthetic parameters p>0.005 . Conclusion: The treatment effects and clinical efficacy of Damon and conventional bracket systems are similar

Keywords

• Damon system, Conventional system, Class I malocclusion, Smile aesthetics

References

1. Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The 5-year clinical performance of direct composite additions to correct tooth form and position. I. Esthetic qualities. Clin Oral Invest 1997; 1:12-8.
2. Kiyak HA. Does orthodontic treatment affect patients’ quality of life? J Dent Educ 2008; 72:886-94.
3. Bennett ME, Michaels C, O’Brien K, Weyant R, Phillips C, Vig K. Measuring beliefs about orthodontic treatment: A questionnaire approach. J Public Health Dent 1997; 57: 215-23.
4. Winnier JJ, Rupesh S, Nayak UA. Treatment options for management of mandibular anterior crowding in mixed dentition. Journal of Evidence Based Medicine and Healthcare 2014; 15(1):1937-46.
5. Kirschen RH, O’Higgins EA, Lee RT. The Royal London Space Planning: An integration of space analysis and treatment planning: Part I: Assessing the space required to meet treatment objectives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000; 118(4):448-55.
6. Damon D. Treatment of the face with biocompatible orthodontics. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL (ed). Orthodontic Principles and Techniques. 4 th ed. St Louis: Elsevier/Mosby 2005; 753-833.
7. Birnie D. The Damon passive self-ligating appliance system. Semin Orthod 2008; 14(1):19-35.
8. Pringle AM, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ, McKnight M. Prospective randomized clinical trial to compare pain levels associated with 2 orthodontic fixed bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136(2):160-7.

9. Scott P, Sherriff M, DiBiase AT, Cobourne MT. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30(3):227-32.
10. Tecco S, D’attilio M, Tetè S, Festa F. Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31(4):380-4.
11. Pandis N, Vlachopoulos K, Polychronopoulou A, Madianos P, Eliades T. Periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and self‐ligating brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res 2008; 11(4):211-5.
12. Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T, McLeod J, Covell DA, Maier T, Machida C. Plaque retention by self- ligating vs elastomeric orthodontic brackets: Quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135(4):426.e1-9; Discussion 426-7.
13. Vajaria R, BeGole E, Kusnoto B, Galang MT, Obrez A. Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system. Angle Orthod 2011; 81(4):647-52.
14. McNamara L, McNamara JA, Ackerman MB, Baccetti T. Hard-and soft-tissue contributions to the esthetics of the posed smile in growing patients seeking orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133(4):491-9.
15. Woodside DG, Berger JL, Hanson GH. Self-ligation orthodontics with the speed appliance. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques. St Louis: Elsevier Mosby, 2005:717-52.
16. Damon DH. The Damon low-friction bracket: A biologically compatible straightwire system. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32(11):670-80.
17. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: A prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132(2):208-15.
18. Damon D. Damon System. The Workbook. 2003.
19. Özdiler E. Güncel Bilgiler Işığında Ortodonti. Ankara: Gümüş Kitabevi 2015; 24:543
20. Peck S. So what’s new? Arch expansion, again. Angle Orthod 2008; 78(3):574-5.
21. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 selfligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134(4):470. e1-.e8.
22. Fleming PS, Lee RT, Marinho V, Johal A. Comparison of maxillary arch dimensional changes with passive and active self-ligation and conventional brackets in the permanent dentition: A multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144(2):185-93.
23. Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K. Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre- adjusted brackets. Aust Orthod J 2008; 24:102-9.
24. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res 2001; 4(4):228-34.
25. Harradine NW. Self‐ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Orthod Craniofac Res 2001; 4(4):220-7.
26. Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and selfligating brackets: A prospective clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2006; 9(4):193-8.
27. Atik E, Ciğer S. An assessment of conventional and self- ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients. Angle Orthod 2014; 84(4):615-22.
28. Atik E, Akarsu-Guven B, Kocadereli I, Ciger S. Evaluation of maxillary arch dimensional and inclination changes with self-ligating and conventional brackets using broad archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016; 149(6):830-7.
29. Jiang RP, Fu MK. Non-extraction treatment with self- ligating and conventional brackets. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008; 43(8):459-63.
30. Kocadereli I. Changes in soft tissue profile after orthodontic treatment with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122(1):67-72.
31. Talass MF, Tollaae L, Baker RC. Soft-tissue profile changes resulting from retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 91(5):385-94.
32. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2009; 32(3):248-53.
33. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136(3):340-7.
34. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: A single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140(3):e99-e105.
35. Gilbert B. Comparison of inter-canine and inter-molar expansion between the Damon2 passive self-ligating bracket system and a conventional. 022 MBT bracket in the treatment of class I non-extraction orthodontic cases. University of Lousville School of Dentistry, Master Thesis Study. 2003.
36. Tecco S, Tetè S, Perillo L, Chimenti C, Festa F. Maxillary arch width changes during orthodontic treatment with fixed self-ligating and traditional straight-wire appliances. World J Orthod Winter 2009; 10(4):290-4.
37. Fleming PS, Lee RT, Mcdonald T, Pandis N, Johal A. The timing of significant arch dimensional changes with fixed orthodontic appliances: Data from a multicenter randomised controlled trial. J Dent 2014; 42(1):1-6.
38. Tao L, Yao R,Tang GH, Xu XC, Yu YL. Arch perimeter changes on non-extraction correction of dental crowding with Damon appliance. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2008; 17(3):243-9.
39. Cattaneo P, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cevidanes L, Melsen B. Transversal maxillary dentoalveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive selfligating brackets: A randomized clinical trial using CBCT‐scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14(4):222-33.
40. Moore T, Southard KA, Casko JS, Qian F, Southard TE. Buccal corridors and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127(2):208-13.
41. Dunn WJ, Murchison DF, Broome JC. Esthetics: patients’ perceptions of dental attractiveness. J Prosthodont 1996; 5(3):166-71.
42. Zachrisson BU. Premolar extraction and smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124(6):A11-A2.
43. Janson G, Branco NC, Morais JF, Freitas MR. Smile attractiveness in patients with Class II division 1 subdivision malocclusions treated with different tooth extraction protocols. Eur J Orthod 2011; 36(1):1-8.
44. Sarver DM. The importance of incisor positioning in the esthetic smile: The smile arc. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120(2):98-111.
45. Gracco A, Cozzani M, D’Elia L, Manfrini M, Peverada C, Siciliani G. The smile buccal corridors: Aesthetic value for dentists and laypersons. Prog Orthod 2006; 7(1):56-65.
46. Martin AJ, Buschang PH, Boley JC, Taylor RW, McKinney TW. The impact of buccal corridors on smile attractiveness. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29(5):530-7.
47. Ioi H, Nakata S, Counts AL. Effects of buccal corridors on smile esthetics in Japanese. Angle Orthod 2009; 79(4):628- 33.
48. Nascimento DC, Santos ER, Machado AWL, Bittencourt MAV. Influence of buccal corridor dimension on smile esthetics. Dental Press J Orthod 2012; 17(5):145-50.
49. Hulsey CM. An esthetic evaluation of lip-teeth relationships present in the smile. Am J Orthod 1970; 57(2):132-44.
50. Kim E, Gianelly AA. Extraction vs nonextraction: Arch widths and smile esthetics. Angle Orthod 2003; 73(4):354- 8.
51. Roden Johnson D, Gallerano R, English J. The effects of buccal corridor spaces and arch form on smile esthetics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127(3):343-50.
52. Ritter DE, Gandini LG Jr, Pinto AS, Locks A. Esthetic influence of negative space in the buccal corridor during smiling. Angle Orthod 2006; 76(2):198-203.
53. Shook C, Kim S, Burnheimer J. Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with Damon and conventional brackets: A retrospective analysis. Angle Orthod 2015; 86(4):655-60.
54. Meyer AH, Woods MG, Manton DJ. Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with orthodontic treatment. Part 1: Differences between premolar extraction and nonextraction treatment outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145(2):207-16.
55. Johnson DK, Smith RJ. Smile estheties after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 108(2):162-7.