The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Randomized controlled clinical trial of oral health-related quality of life in patients wearing conventional and self-ligating brackets

  • Othman, Siti Adibah (Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya) ;
  • Mansor, Noorhanizar (Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya) ;
  • Saub, Roslan (Department of Community Oral Health and Clinical Prevention, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya)
  • Received : 2013.10.03
  • Accepted : 2013.12.04
  • Published : 2014.07.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients treated with conventional, active self-ligating (ASL), and passive self-ligating (PSL) brackets in different therapeutic phases. Methods: Sixty patients (mean age 18.3 years; 29 males and 31 females) requiring orthodontic treatment were randomly and equally assigned to receive conventional (Victory Series), ASL (In-Ovation R), or PSL (Damon 3MX) brackets. OHRQoL was measured with a self-administered modified 16-item Malaysian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for immediate (soon after the visit) and late (just before the subsequent visit) assessments of the bonding and activation phases. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. Results: The PSL and ASL groups showed more immediate and late impacts in the bonding phase, respectively; the conventional group was affected in both the assessments. The first activation phase had similar impacts in the groups. After the second activation, the conventional group showed more immediate impacts, whereas the PSL and ASL groups had more late impacts. The commonly affected domains were "physical disability," "functional limitation," "physical pain," and "psychological discomfort." No significant differences in the prevalence and severity of immediate and late impacts on OHRQoL of the patients were noted in any therapeutic phase. Conclusions: No bracket system seems to ensure superior OHRQoL. This information could be useful for explaining the therapeutic phases, especially the initial one, and selecting the optimal bracket system based on the patient's preference.

Keywords

References

  1. Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP, Feinmann C. Psychological aspects of orthognathic surgery: a review of the literature. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1995;10:159-72.
  2. Schmidt A, Ciesielski R, Orthuber W, Koos B. Survey of oral health-related quality of life among skeletal malocclusion patients following orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery. J Orofac Orthop 2013;74:287-94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-013-0151-2
  3. Bellot-Arcis C, Montiel-Company JM, Almerich-Silla JM. Psychosocial impact of malocclusion in Spanish adolescents. Korean J Orthod 2013;43:193-200. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2013.43.4.193
  4. Cunningham SJ, O'Brien C. Quality of life and orthodontics. Semin Orthod 2007;13:96-103. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2007.03.005
  5. O'Brien K, Kay L, Fox D, Mandall N. Assessing oral health outcomes for orthodontics--measuring health status and quality of life. Community Dent Health 1998;15:22-6.
  6. Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod 1997;24:309-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/24.4.309
  7. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:220-7.
  8. Khambay B, Millett D, McHugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:327-32. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/26.3.327
  9. Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:395-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.018
  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40407.x
  11. Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005;21:123-7.
  12. Tecco S, D'Attilio M, Tete S, Festa F. Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:380-4. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp003
  13. Fleming PS, Dibiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2009;79:46-50. https://doi.org/10.2319/121007-579.1
  14. Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010;80:575-84. https://doi.org/10.2319/081009-454.1
  15. Kohli SS, Kohli VS. Patient pain experience after placement of initial aligning archwire using active and passive self-ligating bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Orthodontics (Chic.) 2012;013:e58-65.
  16. Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U. Associations between orthodontic treatment need and oral health-related quality of life among young adults: does it depend on how you assess them? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011;39:137-44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2010.00573.x
  17. Saub R, Locker D, Allison P. Derivation and validation of the short version of the Malaysian Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005;33:378-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2005.00242.x
  18. Locker D, Quinonez C. Functional and psychosocial impacts of oral disorders in Canadian adults: a national population survey. J Can Dent Assoc 2009;75:521.
  19. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2000.
  20. Saub R, Locker D. The impact of oral conditions on the quality of life of the Malaysian adult population: preliminary results. Med J Malaysia 2006;61:438-46.
  21. Major TW, Carey JP, Nobes DS, Major PW. Orthodontic bracket manufacturing tolerances and dimensional differences between select self-ligating brackets. J Dent Biomech 2010;2010:781321.
  22. Krishnan V. Orthodontic pain: from causes to management-- a review. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:170-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl081
  23. Crawford NL, McCarthy C, Murphy TC, Benson PE. Physical properties of conventional and Super Slick elastomeric ligatures after intraoral use. Angle Orthod 2010;80:175-81. https://doi.org/10.2319/013009-63.1
  24. Ngan P, Kess B, Wilson S. Perception of discomfort by patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:47-53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90228-X
  25. Jones M, Chan C. The pain and discomfort experienced during orthodontic treatment: a randomized controlled clinical trial of two initial aligning arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 102:373-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(92)70054-E
  26. Erdinc AM, Dincer B. Perception of pain during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:79-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/26.1.79
  27. Zhang M, McGrath C, Hagg U. Changes in oral health-related quality of life during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:25-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.024
  28. Masood Y, Masood M, Zainul NN, Araby NB, Hussain SF, Newton T. Impact of malocclusion on oral health related quality of life in young people. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-25
  29. Rusanen J, Lahti S, Tolvanen M, Pirttiniemi P. Quality of life in patients with severe malocclusion before treatment. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:43-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp065
  30. Roscoe JT. Fundamental research statistic for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1975.

Cited by

  1. Adhesion of mutans streptococci to self-ligating ceramic brackets: in vivo quantitative analysis with real-time polymerase chain reaction vol.37, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju090
  2. Impact of wearing fixed orthodontic appliances on quality of life among adolescents: Case-control study vol.86, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/100514716.1
  3. Cone Beam Computed Tomography-based Evaluation of the Anterior Teeth Position Changes obtained by Passive Self-ligating Brackets vol.17, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1901
  4. Differences between active and passive self-ligating brackets for orthodontic treatment : Systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials vol.78, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0059-8
  5. Do fixed orthodontic appliances adversely affect the periodontium? A systematic review of systematic reviews vol.25, pp.2, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2019.05.005
  6. Pain and Oral-Health-Related Quality of Life in Orthodontic Patients During Initial Therapy with Conventional, Low-Friction, and Lingual Brackets and Aligners (Invisalign): A Prospective Clinical Stud vol.9, pp.7, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm9072088
  7. Temporary deterioration of oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) in nonextraction and extraction modalities of comprehensive orthodontic treatment in adolescents vol.90, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/092319-607.1
  8. A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Slot Size on Pain and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHRQoL) in Orthodontics during the First Month of Treatment with Conventional and Low vol.10, pp.20, 2014, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10207136
  9. Is there any difference between conventional, passive and active self-ligating brackets? A systematic review and network meta-analysis vol.19, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.09.005