대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

  • 제45권2호
  • /
  • Pages.89-94
  • /
  • 2015
  • /
  • 2234-7518(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-372X(eISSN)
대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Mandibular changes during initial alignment with SmartClip self-ligating and conventional brackets: A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

  • Celikoglu, Mevlut (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University) ;
  • Bayram, Mehmet (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University) ;
  • Nur, Metin (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Sifa University) ;
  • Kilkis, Dogan (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University)
  • 투고 : 2014.05.22
  • 심사 : 2014.08.01
  • 발행 : 2015.03.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that SmartClip self-ligating brackets are more effective than conventional brackets for initial mandibular alignment and identify influential factors. Methods: Fifty patients were randomly allocated to two equal treatment groups by using an online randomization program: self-ligating group (SmartClip brackets) and conventional group (Gemini brackets). The archwire sequence was standardized. Changes in anterior irregularity index, intercanine width, and intermolar width were assessed on plaster models at 8th and 16th weeks. Changes in incisor position and inclination were assessed on lateral cephalometric radiographs at 16 weeks. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were performed with paired t-test and Student's t-test, respectively. Multiple linear regression was performed to identify variables affecting improvement in anterior ambiguity. Results: Data of 46 patients were analyzed; those missing an appointment (n = 2) or showing bracket breakage (n = 2) were excluded. Incisor inclination (p < 0.05), intercanine width (p < 0.05), and intermolar width (p > 0.05) increased at 8 and 16 weeks in both the groups; no significant intergroup differences were noted (p > 0.05). Initial anterior irregularity index and intercanine width change were significantly associated with improvement in anterior irregularity (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The null hypothesis was rejected. Bracket type has little effect on improvement in anterior ambiguity during initial mandibular alignment.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp123
  2. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998;1:52-61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.1998.1.1.52
  3. Harradine NW, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:319-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70155-5
  4. 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
  5. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:220-7.
  6. Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005;21:123-7.
  7. Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:416-22. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.14
  8. Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. A comparison of different ligation methods on friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:666-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.021
  9. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:283-91. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.3.283
  10. Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod 2004;74:202-11.
  11. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod 1980;78:593-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90199-2
  12. Kapila S, Angolkar PV, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS. Evaluation of friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:117-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70005-W
  13. Braun S, Bluestein M, Moore BK, Benson G. Friction in perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:619-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70286-6
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.030
  15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.014
  16. Fleming PS, Dibiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Pain experience during initial alignment with a selfligating 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
  17. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.023
  18. 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: e99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.019
  19. 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.
  20. Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cevidanes LH, et al. Transversal maxillary dento-alveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self-ligating brackets: a randomized clinical trial using CBCT-scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011;14:222-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01527.x
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq179
  22. Bertl MH, Onodera K, Celar AG. A prospective randomized split-mouth study on pain experience during chairside archwire manipulation in selfligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod 2013;83:292-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/042312-338.1
  23. 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;144:185-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.012
  24. Johansson K, Lundstrom F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2012;82:929-34. https://doi.org/10.2319/101911-653.1
  25. Pandis N. Sample calculations for comparison of 2 means. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:519-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.010
  26. Celikoglu M, Akpinar S, Yavuz I. The pattern of malocclusion in a sample of orthodontic patients from Turkey. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010;15:e791-6.
  27. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975;68:554-63. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(75)90086-X
  28. Burke SP, Silveira AM, Goldsmith LJ, Yancey JM, Van Stewart A, Scarfe WC. A meta-analysis of mandibular intercanine width in treatment and postretention. Angle Orthod 1998;68:53-60.
  29. Harradine N. Self-ligating brackets increase treatment efficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:10-8, 11-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.011
  30. Reddy VB, Kumar TA, Prasad M, Nuvvula S, Patil RG, Reddy PK. A comparative in-vivo evaluation of the alignment efficiency of 5 ligation methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Eur J Dent 2014;8:23-31. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.126236

피인용 문헌

  1. Variation in form of mandibular, light, round, preformed NiTi archwires vol.86, pp.5, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2319/090315-593.1
  2. Comparison of changes in irregularity and transverse width with nickel-titanium and niobium-titanium-tantalum-zirconium archwires during initial orthodontic alignment in adolescents: A double-blind ra vol.88, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2319/061417-393.1
  3. Agreement of the clinician's choice of archwire selection on conventional and virtual models vol.89, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2319/051818-375.1
  4. Is there any difference between conventional, passive and active self-ligating brackets? A systematic review and network meta-analysis vol.19, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.09.005