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

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volumn 140, Issue 3, 2011, Pages

  Pandis, Nikolaos ^a,b   Polychronopoulou, Argy ^c   Katsaros, Christos ^b   Eliades, Theodore ^d  

^a University of Bern ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ATHENS   (Greece)

^d ARISTOTLE UNIVERSITY OF THESSALONIKI   (Greece)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 80052363983     PISSN: 08895406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.019     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. N.W. Harradine Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency Clin Orthod Res 4 2001 220 227 (Pubitemid 33351681)
2. N.W. Harradine Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 30 2003 262 273
3. P.K. Shivapuja, and J. Berger A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 106 1994 472 480
4. P.G. Miles Smartclip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 21 2005 123 127
5. P.G. Miles, R.J. Weyant, and L. Rustveld A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment Angle Orthod 76 2006 480 485 (Pubitemid 43692581)
6. N. Pandis, A. Polychronopoulou, and T. Eliades 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 132 2007 208 215
7. P. Scott, A. T DiBiase, M. Sherriff, and M. Cobourne Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134 2008 470.e1 470.e8
8. P. Fleming, A.T. DiBiase, G. Sarri, and R.T. Lee A comparison of the efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with two preadjusted edgewise appliances Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135 2009 597 602
9. S.S. Chen, G.M. Greenlee, J.E. Kim, C.L. Smith, and G.J. Huang Systematic review of self-ligating brackets Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137 2010 726.e1 726.e18
10. R.A. Sandstrom, L. Klapper, and S. Papaconstantinou Expansion of the lower arch concurrent with rapid maxillary expansion Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 94 1988 296 302
11. D.H. Damon The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket Clin Orthod Res 1 1998 52 61
12. D.H. Damon The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system J Clin Orthod 32 1998 670 680
13. R.M. Little The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment Am J Orthod 68 1975 554 563
14. P. Ryan Random allocation of treatment blocks. Stata Technical Bulletin STB-41; p. 43-66 Reprinted in Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints 7 1998 297 300
15. G. Dunn Statistical evaluation of measurement errors. Design and analysis of reliability studies 2nd ed. 2004 John Wiley & Sons Chichester, United Kingdom p. 21-3
16. P.K. Shivapuja, and J. Berger A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 106 1994 472 480
17. J.L. Berger, and F.K. Byloff The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets J Clin Orthod 35 2001 304 308
18. N.R. Turnbull, and D.J. Birnie Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131 2007 395 399
19. S. Paduano, I. Cioffi, G. Iodice, A. Rapuano, and R. Silva Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems Prog Orthod 9 2008 74 80