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

Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research

Volumn 14, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 222-233

  Cattaneo, P M ^a   Treccani, M ^a   Carlsson, K ^a,b   Thorgeirsson, T ^a,c   Myrda, A ^a   Cevidanes, L H S ^d   Melsen, B ^a  

^a AARHUS UNIVERSITY   (Denmark)

^b Private Practice   (Denmark)

^c Private Practice   (Iceland)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Cone beam computed tomography; Digital models; Ligation; Maxilla; Orthodontics; Treatment outcome

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BONE REMODELING; CANINE TOOTH; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONE BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL PROCEDURE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; JAW; MALOCCLUSION; MAXILLA; METHODOLOGY; MOLAR TOOTH; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; ORTHODONTICS; PATHOLOGY; PERIODONTAL DISEASE; PHYSIOLOGY; PREMOLAR TOOTH; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; THREE DIMENSIONAL IMAGING; TOOTH; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ALVEOLAR PROCESS; BICUSPID; BONE REMODELING; CEPHALOMETRY; CHILD; CONE-BEAM COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY; CUSPID; DENTAL MODELS; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; IMAGING, THREE-DIMENSIONAL; MALOCCLUSION; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS I; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS III; MAXILLA; MOLAR; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE DESIGN; ORTHODONTIC BRACKETS; TOOTH; TOOTH MOVEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 80054831859     PISSN: 16016335     EISSN: 16016343     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01527.x     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Self-ligating appliances: evolution or revolution? J Clin Orthod 2008;42:641-51.
2. Harradine N. The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Semin Orthod 2008;14:5-18.
3. Damon DH. Treatment of the face with biocompatible orthodontics. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL, editors. Orthodontics Current Principles and Techniques. Mosby: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 753-831.
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.
5. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:220-7.
6. Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K. Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Aust Orthod J 2008;24:102-9.
7. Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: do they deliver what they claim? Aust Dent J 2009;54:9-11.
8. Roth RH, Sapunar A, Frantz RC. The in-ovation bracket for fully adjusted appliances. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL, editors. Orthodontics Current Principles & Techniques. Mosby: Elsevier; 2005. pp. 833-53.
9. Pandis N, Eliades T, Partowi S, Bourauel C. Forces exerted by conventional and self-ligating brackets during simulated first- and second-order corrections. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:738-42.
10. Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El Bialy TH, Flores-Mir C. Frictional resistance in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2009;79:592-601.
11. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Resistance to sliding of orthodontic appliances in the dry and wet states: influence of archwire alloy, interbracket distance, and bracket engagement. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;52:797-811.
12. Weinstein S. Minimal forces in tooth movement. Am J Orthod 1967;53:881-903.
13. Badawi HM, Toogood RW, Carey JP, Heo G, Major PW. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:721-8.
14. Morina E, Eliades T, Pandis N, Jager A, Bourauel C. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:233-8.
15. Pandis N, Eliades T, Partowi S, Bourauel C. Moments generated during simulated rotational correction with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1030-4.
16. Baumrind S, Miller D, Molthen R. The reliability of head film measurements. 3. Tracing superimposition. Am J Orthod 1976;70:617-44.
17. Ludlow JB, Ivanovic M. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:106-14.
18. Cattaneo PM, Melsen B. The use of cone-beam computed tomography in an orthodontic department in between research and daily clinic. World J Orthod 2008;9:269-82.
19. Yushkevich PA, Piven J, Hazlett HC, Smith RG, Ho S, Gee JC et al. User-guided 3D active contour segmentation of anatomical structures: significantly improved efficiency and reliability. Neuroimage 2006;31:1116-28.
20. Cevidanes LH, Bailey LJ, Tucker GR Jr, Styner MA, Mol A, Phillips CL et al. Superimposition of 3D cone-beam CT models of orthognathic surgery patients. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2005;34:369-75.
21. Cevidanes LH, Heymann G, Cornelis MA, DeClerck HJ, Tulloch JF. Superimposition of 3-dimensional cone-beam computed tomography models of growing patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:94-9.
22. Melsen B. The Cranial Base. Acta Odontol Scand 1974;32(Suppl. 62):86-101.
23. Maes F, Collignon A, Vandermeulen D, Marchal G, Suetens P. Multimodality image registration by maximization of mutual information. IEEE Trans Med Imaging 1997;16:187-98.
24. Molen AD. Considerations in the use of cone-beam computed tomography for buccal bone measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;4(Suppl):S130-5.
25. Harris EF, Smith RN. Accounting for measurement error: a critical but often overlooked process. Arch Oral Biol 2009;54(Suppl. 1):S107-17.
26. Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the edgewise arch in the treatment of class II, division 1, malocclusion: part I. Angle Orthod 1936;6:198-208.
27. Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the edgewise arch in the treatment of class II, division 1, malocclusion: part II. Angle Orthod 1936;6:255-7.
28. Peck S. So what's new? Arch expansion, again Angle Orthod 2008;78:574-5.
29. Evans TJ, Jones ML, Newcombe RG. Clinical comparison and performance perspective of three aligning arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:32-9.
30. Riedel RA. A review of the retention problem. Angle Orthod 1960;30:179-99.
31. McNamara JA Jr. Long-term adaptations to changes in the transverse dimension in children and adolescents: an overview. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;4(Suppl):S71-4.
32. Miller RJ, Kuo E, Choi W. Validation of Align Technology's Treat III digital model superimposition tool and its case application. Orthod Craniofac Res 2003;6(Suppl. 1):143-9.
33. Bailey LT, Esmailnejad A, Almeida MA. Stability of the palatal rugae as landmarks for analysis of dental casts in extraction and nonextraction cases. Angle Orthod 1996;66:73-8.
34. Farman AG. ALARA still applies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:395-7.
35. Franchi L, Baccetti T, Camporesi M, Lupoli M. Maxillary arch changes during leveling and aligning with fixed appliances and low-friction ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:88-91.
36. Chung CH, Font B. Skeletal and dental changes in the sagittal, vertical, and transverse dimensions after rapid palatal expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:569-75.
37. Frankel R. A functional approach to orofacial orthopaedics. Br J Orthod 1980;7:41-51.
38. Ballanti F, Lione R, Fanucci E, Franchi L, Baccetti T, Cozza P. Immediate and post-retention effects of rapid maxillary expansion investigated by computed tomography in growing patients. Angle Orthod 2009;79:24-9.