Braket ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi

Burak Kale; Ahmet Yalçın Güngör

doi:10.22312/sdusbed.618722

Braket ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Çalışmamızın amacı hızlı seviyeleme iddiaları olan Speed braket ve Supercable ark telinin mandibular kesici dişlerin seviyelenmesi için geçen sürede etkilerinin konvansiyonel braket ve ark telleriyle karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesidir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmamıza Sınıf I anterior hafif veya orta seviye çapraşıklığa sahip 65 birey dahil edilmiştir. Hastalar dört grupta değerlendirilerek 16 hastadan oluşan (8 kız, 8 erkek) birinci gruba Speed System braket ve Supercable ark teli, 15 hastadan oluşan (11 kız, 4 erkek) ikinci gruba Speed System braket ve NiTi ark teli, 15 hastadan oluşan (12 kız, 3 erkek) üçüncü gruba Obey I braket ve Supercable ark teli, 19 hastadan oluşan (15 kız, 4 erkek) dördüncü gruba Obey I braket ve NiTi ark teli uygulanmıştır. Hastaların tedavi öncesi ve tedavi sırasındaki değerleri ağız içi tarama yapılarak dijital olarak alınmıştır. İki ay boyunca ilk olarak 0,016" ve daha sonra iki ay boyunca 0,018" Supercable ve NiTi ark telleri uygulandıktan sonra Little çapraşılık indeksine göre hesaplanan mandibular çapraşıklığı çözme etkinlikleri ölçülmüştür.

Bulgular: Tüm gruplarda çapraşıklık indekslerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı düşüşler tespit edilmiştir (p<0,001). Gruplar arası ise konvansiyonel braket ve ark teli gruplarında diğer gruplara göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı daha fazla düşüş bulunmuştur (p<0,001).

Sonuç: Speed system braket ve Supercable ark teli grupları, konvansiyonel braket ve ark teli gruplarıyla karşılaştırıldığında tedavi etkinliği daha az bulunmuştur.

Keywords

speed sistem,mandibular çapraşıklık

References

Referans1 Harradine NWT. Current products and practices self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod. 2003; 30:262-73.
Referans2 Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998;1:52-61.
Referans3 Harradine NW, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:319-28.
Referans4 Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:228-34.
Referans5 Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:220-7.
Referans6 Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: do they deliver what they claim? AustDent J. 2009;54:9-11.
Referans7 Agarwal A, Agarwal DK, Bhattacharya P. Newer orthodontic wires: a resolution in orthodontics. Orthodontic Cyber J. 2011;p. 1-17.
Referans8 Berger J, Byloff FK, Waram T.Supercable and the SPEED system.J Clin Orthod. 1998; 32(4): 246–53

Referans9 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 2010;32:248-53.
Referans10 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;136:340-7
Referans11 Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:597-602.
Referans12 Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:738-42.
Referans13 Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP, Ho C. Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:138.e1-7.
Referans14 Wahab RM, Idris H, Yacob H, Ariffin SH. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:176-81.
Referans15 Johansson K, Lundström F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2012;82:929-34.
Referans16 Biju Sebastian, Alignment efficiency of superelastic coaxial nickel-titanium vs superelastic single-stranded nickel-titanium in relieving mandibular anterior crowding. The Angle Orthodontist: July 2012, Vol. 82, No. 4, pp. 703-708.
Referans17 Berger J.L., Byloff F.K. The Clinical Efficiency of Self-Ligated Brackets J. Clin. Orthod. 2001; 35:(5):304-308.
Referans18 Shivapuja P.K., Berger J.L A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1994; 106:(5):472-480.
Referans19 Berger JL. The SPEED System: an overview of the appliance and clinical performance. Semin Orthodontics.2008;14,1,8:54-63.
Referans20 Shivapuja P.K., Berger J.L. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1994; 106:(5):472-480.
Referans21 Tecco S, DiLorio D, Cordasco G, Verocci I, Festa F. An in vitro investigation of the influence of self-ligating brackets, low friction ligatures, and archwire on frictional resistance.Eur J Orthod, 2007;29:390-97.
Referans22 Damon DH. The Damon low friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod. 1998; 32(11):670-81.
Referans23 Damon DH. Treatment of face with biocompatible orthodontics. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Wig KWL. Orthodontics current principles and Techniques. 4. basım, St Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2005: 753-831.
Referans24 Harradine NWT. Current products and practices self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod. 2003; 30:262-73.
Referans25 Woodside DG, Berger JL, Hanson GH. Self ligation orthodontics with the speed appliance. Vanarsdall RL, Wig KWL Graber TM. Orthodontics Current Principles and Techniques.St Louis : Elsevier Mosby, 2005.
Referans26 Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554-63.
Referans27 Leifert MF, Leifert MM, Efstratiadis SS, Cangialosi TJ. Comparison of space analysisevaluations with digital models and plaster dental casts. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2009;136(1):16.
Referans28 Zilberman O, Huggare JA, Parikakis KA. Evaluation of the validity of tooth size and arch width measurements using conventional and three-dimensional virtual orthodontic models. Angle Orthod. 2003;73(3):301-6.
Referans29 Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vsconventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod2006;76:480-5.
Referans30 Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs con-ventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a pro-spective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:208-15.
Referans31 Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K. Comparison of activeself-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets.Aust Orthod J 2008;24:102-9.
Referans32 Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets forinitial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005;21:123-7.
Referans33 Henao SP, Kusy RP. Frictional evaluations of dental typodont models using four selfligating designs and a conventional design. Angle Orthod. 2004; 75:75-85.
Referans34 Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:597-602.
Referans35 Melo AC, Carneiro LO, Pontes LF, Cecim RL, de Mattos JN, Normando D. Factors related to orthodontic treatment time in adult patients. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013;18(5):59-63.
Referans36 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.
Referans37 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.
Referans38 Celikoglu M, Bayram M, Nur M, Kilkis D. Mandibular cahnges during initial alignment with Smartclip self-ligating and conventional brackets: A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial Korean J Orthod. 2015;45(2): 89-94.
Referans39 Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon 3 selfligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:470.e1–470.e8.

Details

Primary Language

Turkish

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Burak Kale ^*
0000-0001-6828-8547
Türkiye

Ahmet Yalçın Güngör This is me
0000-0003-4394-6835

Publication Date

March 3, 2020

Submission Date

September 11, 2019

Acceptance Date

February 7, 2020

Published in Issue

Year 2020 Volume: 11 Number: 1

DOI

https://doi.org/10.22312/sdusbed.618722

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA83HU82HZ

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Kale, B., & Güngör, A. Y. (2020). Braket ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, 11(1), 49-53. https://doi.org/10.22312/sdusbed.618722

AMA

1.Kale B, Güngör AY. Braket ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020;11(1):49-53. doi:10.22312/sdusbed.618722

Chicago

Kale, Burak, and Ahmet Yalçın Güngör. 2020. “Braket Ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 11 (1): 49-53. https://doi.org/10.22312/sdusbed.618722.

EndNote

Kale B, Güngör AY (March 1, 2020) Braket ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 11 1 49–53.

IEEE

[1]B. Kale and A. Y. Güngör, “Braket ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi”, Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 49–53, Mar. 2020, doi: 10.22312/sdusbed.618722.

ISNAD

Kale, Burak - Güngör, Ahmet Yalçın. “Braket Ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 11/1 (March 1, 2020): 49-53. https://doi.org/10.22312/sdusbed.618722.

JAMA

1.Kale B, Güngör AY. Braket ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020;11:49–53.

MLA

Kale, Burak, and Ahmet Yalçın Güngör. “Braket Ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi”. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, vol. 11, no. 1, Mar. 2020, pp. 49-53, doi:10.22312/sdusbed.618722.

Vancouver

1.Burak Kale, Ahmet Yalçın Güngör. Braket ve Ark Teli Tiplerinin Mandibular Anterior Çapraşıklığın Tedavi Süresine Etkilerinin İncelenmesi. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2020 Mar. 1;11(1):49-53. doi:10.22312/sdusbed.618722