Comparison of the initial levelling efficiency of two different self-ligating brackets

Year 2023, , 84 - 91, 04.09.2023

Tuğçe Kaşıkcıoğlu , Hande Pamukçu , Ayça Arman-özçırpıcı , Ömür Polat-özsoy

https://doi.org/10.17214/gaziaot.1164983

Abstract

Aim: The objective of this study, to evaluate the initial alignment effectiveness of two different passive self-ligating brackets (SLBs) and to compare the differences in arch widths.
Materials and Methods: The patients with no skeletal discrepancy, Little’s irregularity index (LII) greater than 3 mm on both arches, who were treated with SLBs and whom had undamaged plaster models at the beginning (T0), 10th week (T1), and 20th week (T2) of their treatment period were enrolled to the study group. Group 1 (Damon) was consisted of 17 patients (mean age=14.5 years) and Group 2 (SmartClip) was consisted of 18 patients (mean age=13.6 years). The analogue dental casts were transferred to a digital model by scanning. Maxillary and mandibular intercanine, intermolar widths and LII were measured by MeshLab software. Wilcoxon signed-rank and Mann Whitney U tests was used for statistical evaluation.
Results: There were no significant differences between the groups for the mean LII in T0 (maxillary LII, Group 1= 6.59 mm; Group 2= 6.32 mm; mandibular LII, Group 1= 5.95 mm, Group 2= 5.73mm). The rate of decrease in the LII between T0-T2 and between T1-T2 were found to be significantly higher for Group 1 in the mandible but there was no significant difference between T0-T1 (P= 0.031, P= 0.042, P= 0.113). There was no significant difference for the rate of decrease in the LIIs between the groups in the maxilla. When changes of intermolar and intercanine widths were compared according to the follow-up times, no significant differences were found for the treatment groups.
Conclusion: Both SLBs groups were effective for reducing the crowding in maxillary arch. The increases in intercanine and intermolar widths were found to be similar for both groups. Group 1 was found to be better in the speed of the resolution of the crowding only in the lower incisor region.

Keywords

orthodontics, orthodontic appliances, orthodontic brackets

Supporting Institution

Başkent University

Project Number

D-KA 17/06

Kendinden bağlamalı iki farklı braket sisteminin başlangıç seviyeleme etkinliğinin karşılaştırılması

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, iki farklı pasif kendinden bağlamalı braketin (KBB) başlangıç seviyeleme etkinliğini değerlendirmek ve ark genişliği üzerindeki etkilerini karşılaştırmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu çalışmaya KBB'ler ile tedavi edilmiş, iskeletsel anomalisi olmayan, her iki arkta Little’ın irregülerite indeksi (Lİİ) 3 mm'den fazla olan ve tedavi başı (T0), tedavinin 10. (T1) ve 20. (T2) haftalarında hasarsız alçı modelleri mevcut olan hastalar dahil edilmiştir. Grup 1 (Damon) 17 hastadan (ortalama yaş=14.5 yıl), Grup 2 (SmartClip) ise 18 hastadan (ortalama yaş=13.6) oluşmuştur. Dental modeller taranarak dijital modeller elde edilmiştir. Maksiller-mandibular interkanin, intermolar genişlikler ve Lİİ’leri MeshLab yazılımı ile ölçülmüştür. İstatistiksel analiz için Wilcoxon ve Mann Whitney U testleri kullanılmıştır.
Bulgular: T0'da ortalama Lİİ açısından gruplar arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır (maksiller Lİİ, Grup 1= 6.59 mm; Grup 2= 6.32 mm; mandibular Lİİ, Grup 1= 5.95 mm, Grup 2= 5.73mm). Mandibulada, Lİİ’deki azalma oranı Grup 1’de T0-T2 ve T1-T2 dönemleri arasında anlamlı derecede yüksek bulunmuştur ancak T0-T1 arasında anlamlı bir farka rastlanmamıştır (P=0.031, P=0.042, P=0.113). Maksillada, gruplar arasında Lİİ’deki azalma oranı açısından anlamlı bir fark yoktur. Takip sürelerine göre intermolar ve interkanin genişliklerindeki değişimler karşılaştırıldığında tedavi grupları arasında anlamlı bir fark bulunmamıştır.
Sonuç: Her iki KBB grubunun da maksiller arktaki çapraşıklığı etkili bir şekilde azalttığı gösterilmiştir. İnterkanin ve intermolar genişliklerdeki artışlar her iki grup için de benzer bulunmuştur. Grup 1, sadece alt kesici bölgesindeki çapraşıklığı düzeltme hızı açısından daha iyi bulunmuştur.

Keywords

ortodonti, ortodontik braketler, ortodontik gereçler

Project Number

D-KA 17/06

References

• 1. Kim TK, Kim KD, Baek SH. Comparison of frictional forces during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of self-ligating brackets and archwires with a custom-designed typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;133:187.e15.
• 2. Griffiths HS, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Resistance to sliding with 3 types of elastomeric modules. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2005;127(6):670–75.
• 3. Khambay B, Millett D, McHugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:327–32.
• 4. Henao SP KRP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod 2004;74:202–11.
• 5. Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;106:472–80.
• 6. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, of BMTEJ, 1998 undefined. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:283–91.
• 7. Sims APT, Waters NE, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:377–85.
• 8. Harradine NWT. Self-ligating Brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 2014;30:262–73.
• 9. Paduano S, Cioffi I, Iodice G, Rapuano A, Silva R. Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems. Prog Orthod 2008;9:74–80.
• 10. Damon DH. The Damon low friction bracket; a biologically compatible straight wire system. The Damon low-friction bracket; a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:670–80.
• 11. Berger JL. The SPEED System: an overview of the appliance and clinical performance. Semin Orthod 2008;14:54–63.
• 12. Chen SSH, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010;137:726-e1.
• 13. Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Traini T, Donato, Iorio D, et al. Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model. Angle Orthod 2005;75:1041–45.
• 14. Gómez-Gómez SL, Sánchez-Obando N, Álvarez-Castrillón MA, Montoya-Goez Y, Ardila CM. Comparison of frictional forces during the closure of extraction spaces in passive self-ligating brackets and conventionally ligated brackets using the finite element method. J Clin Exp Dent 2019;11:e439–e46.
• 15. Scott P, DiBiase A, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;134,470-e1.
• 16. Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod 2005;21:123–27.
• 17. Little RM. The Irregularity Index: A quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554–63.
• 18. Dragomirescu AO, Bencze MA, Vasilache A, Teodorescu E, Albu CC, Popoviciu NO, et al. Reducing friction in orthodontic brackets: a matter of material or type of ligation selection? In-vitro comparative study. Materials 2022; 15,2640.
• 19. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2TM vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006;76:480-85.
• 20. 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 Dentofac Orthop 2011;140:e99–105.
• 21. Sousa M, Vasconcelos EC, Janson G, Garib D, Pinzan A. Accuracy and reproducibility of 3-dimensional digital model measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2012;142:269–73.
• 22. Bell A, Ayoub AF, Siebert P. Assessment of the accuracy of a three-dimensional imaging system for archiving dental study models. J Orthod 2003;30:219–23.
• 23. 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 Dentofac Orthop 2007;132:208–15.
• 24. 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 Dentofac Orthop 2009;136:340–47.
• 25. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2009;135:597–602.