Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets A prospective randomized clinical trial

Angle Orthodontist

Volumn 82, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 929-934

  Johansson, Kristina ^a   Lundström, Fredrik ^b  

^a ÖSTERSUND HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry ^*  (Sweden)

Author keywords

Conventional; Orthodontic; Self ligating; Treatment efficiency

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; METHODOLOGY; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; ORTHODONTICS; PERIODONTAL DISEASE; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REVIEW; TIME; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

ADOLESCENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MALOCCLUSION; ORTHODONTIC APPLIANCE DESIGN; ORTHODONTIC BRACKETS; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; TIME FACTORS; TOOTH MOVEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84866489889     PISSN: 00033219     EISSN: 19457103     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2319/101911-653.1     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. Int J Orthodont Dent Child. 1935;21:837-840.
2. Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS III. JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod. 2008;42:625-640.
3. Harradine N. The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Semin Orthod. 2008;14:5-18.
4. Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:575-584.
5. Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: do they deliver what they claim? Aust Dent J. 2009;54:9-11.
6. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1:52-61.
7. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:283-291. (Pubitemid 128492285)
8. Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J Orthod. 1993;15:377-385.
9. Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod. 1997;24:309-317.
10. Redlich M, Mayer Y, Harari D, Lewinstein I. In vitro study of frictional forces during sliding mechanics of "reduced-friction" brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:69-73. (Pubitemid 36890622)
11. Reicheneder CA, Gedrange T, Berrisch S, Proff P, Baumert U, Faltermeier A, Muessig D. Conventionally ligated versus self-ligating metal brackets-a comparative study. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30:654-660.
12. 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.
13. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006;76:480-485. (Pubitemid 43692581)
14. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:470.e1-470.e8.
15. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Active or passive self-ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparative efficiency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:12.e1-12.e6.
16. 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.
17. 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)
18. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4:220-227. (Pubitemid 33351681)
19. Fleming P, 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;137:738-742.
20. Di Biase AT, Nasr IH, Scott P, Cobourne MT. Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:e111-e116.
21. Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). J Orthod. 2000;27:149-162.
22. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemized Orthodontic Treatment Mechanics. Edinburgh, UK: Mosby; 2001.
23. Turbill EA, Richmond S, Wright JL. The time-factor in orthodontics: what influences the duration of treatments in National Health Service practices? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2001;29:62-72. (Pubitemid 33685751)
24. Vig PS, Weintraub JA, Brown C, Kowalski CJ. The duration of orthodontic treatment with and without extractions: a pilot study of five selected practices. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped. 1990;97:45-51.
25. Fink DF, Smith RJ. The duration of orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;102:45-54.
26. Firestone AR, Beck FM, Beglin FM, Vig KW. Validity of the Index of Complexity, Outcome, and Need (ICON) in determining orthodontic treatment need. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:15-20.
27. Onyeaso CO, Begole EA. Relationship between index of complexity, outcome and need, dental aesthetic index, peer assessment rating index, and American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131:248-252.
28. Richmond S, Ikonomou C, Williams B, Ramel S, Rolfe B, Kurol J. Orthodontic treatment standards in a public group practice in Sweden. Swedish Dent J. 2001;25:137-144. (Pubitemid 33745659)
29. Deans J, Playle R, Durning P, Richmond S. An exploratory study of the cost-effectiveness of orthodontic care in seven European countries. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:90-94.