Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 81, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 647-652

  Vajaria, Rohini ^a   BeGole, Ellen ^b   Kusnoto, Budi ^b   Galang, Maria Therese ^b   Obrez, Ales ^b  

^a New York NY ^*  (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

3 Dimensional; Damon; Digital; Incisor

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEPHALOMETRY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL CARE; HUMAN; IMAGE PROCESSING; INCISOR; INSTRUMENTATION; LIP; MALOCCLUSION; METHODOLOGY; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; ORTHODONTICS; PATHOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY; TOOTH ARCH;

CEPHALOMETRY; DENTAL ARCH; DENTAL MODELS; DENTAL STRESS ANALYSIS; HUMANS; IMAGE PROCESSING, COMPUTER-ASSISTED; INCISOR; LIP; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS I; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE DESIGN; ORTHODONTIC BRACKETS; ORTHODONTICS, CORRECTIVE; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 79960267204     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: 19457103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2319/071910-420.1     Document Type: Article

References (13)

1. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orth Res. 1998a;1:52-61.
2. Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111:119-139.
3. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:283-291. (Pubitemid 128492285)
4. 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 Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:187.e15-187.e24.
5. Birnie D. The Damon passive self-ligating appliance system. Semin Orthod. 2008;14:19-35.
6. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4:220-227. (Pubitemid 33351681)
7. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4:228-234. (Pubitemid 33351682)
8. 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;132:208-215.
9. Damon DH. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod. 1998b;32: 670-680.
10. Weinberg M, Sadowsky C. Resolution of mandibular arch crowding in growing patients with Class I malocclusions treated nonextraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110:359-364.
11. Fleming P, DiBiase AT, Sari G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:340-347.
12. Combrink FJ, Harris AM, Steyn CL, Hudson AP. Dental skeletal and soft-tissue changes in growing Class II malocclusion patients during nonextraction orthodontic treatment. SADJ. 2006;61:344-350.
13. Jones G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Class II nonextraction patients treated with the Forsus fatigue resistant device versus intermaxillary elastics. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78:332-338.