Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage

European Journal of Orthodontics

Volumn 34, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 176-181

  Megat Abdul Wahab, Rohaya ^a   Idris, Hartini ^a   Yacob, Habibah ^b   Zainal Ariffin, Shahrul Hisham ^a  

^a UNIVERSITI KEBANGSAAN MALAYSIA   (Malaysia)

^b Batu Pahat Dental Clinic   (Malaysia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DENTAL ALLOY; NICKEL; TITANIUM; TITANIUM NICKELIDE;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CANINE TOOTH; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; ORTHODONTICS; PATHOLOGY; PERIODONTAL DISEASE; PREMOLAR TOOTH; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TIME; TOOTH EXTRACTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BICUSPID; CUSPID; DENTAL ALLOYS; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS I; MALOCCLUSION, ANGLE CLASS II; NICKEL; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE DESIGN; ORTHODONTIC BRACKETS; OVERBITE; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS; TITANIUM; TOOTH EXTRACTION; TOOTH MOVEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84859357881     PISSN: 01415387     EISSN: 14602210     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq179     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Barreiro T C, Perez C M C, Suartz Q D 2006 Comparative assessment of the effectiveness of dental alignment between low friction conventional ligated and self-closing brackets on the maxillary arch in 18 patients. European Journal of Orthodontic 28: el-el47
2. Eberting J J, Straja S R, Tuncay O C 2001 Treatment time, outcome and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clinical Orthodontic Research 4: 228-234 (Pubitemid 33351682)
3. Harradine N W T 2001 Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clinical Orthodontic Research 4: 220-227 (Pubitemid 33351681)
4. Harradine N W T 2008 The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Seminars in Orthodontics 14: 5-18
5. Kapur R, Sinha P K, Nanda R S 1998 Frictional resistance of the Damon SL bracket. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 32: 485-489
6. Little R M 1975 The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. American Journal of Orthodontics 68: 554-563
7. Lotfus B P, Årtun J, Nicholls J I, Alonzo T A, Stoner J A 1999 Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 116: 336-345
8. Miles P G 2005 SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Australian Orthodontic Journal 21: 123-127
9. Miles P G, Weyant R J, Rustveld L 2006 A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthodontist 76: 480-485 (Pubitemid 43692581)
10. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T 2007 Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 132: 208-215
11. Proffit W R 2000 Contemporary orthodontics, 3rd edn. Mosby Inc., St Louis
12. Scott P, Dibiase A T, Sherriff M, Cobourne M T 2008 Alignment efficiency of Damon 3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomised clinical trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 134: 470.e1-e8
13. Stolzenberg J 1935 The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. International Journal of Orthodontics and Dentistry for Children 9: 837-840
14. Thorstenson G A, Kusy R P 2002 Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 121: 472-482 (Pubitemid 40433048)
15. Voudouris J C 1997 Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 111: 119-140