PDF herunterladen
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2011; 43(2): 89-94
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1279693
Übersicht

© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Selbstligierende Brackets zwischen Wunschtraum und Wirklichkeit

Self-Ligating Brackets between Dream and RealityF. Weiland1 , B. Lanzer2
  • 1Privatpraxis, Deutschlandsberg, Österreich
  • 2cand.med.dent., Medizinische Universität Graz, Österreich
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
06. Juli 2011 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Vielfach wird behauptet, dass eine Behandlung mit selbstligierenden Brackets effizienter verläuft und mit weniger Nebenwirkungen verbunden ist als mit herkömmlichen Apparaturen. Nach kritischer Durchsicht der Fachliteratur kann zusammenfassend gesagt werden, dass die Verwendung selbstligierender Apparaturen zu einer Reduktion der Stuhlzeit pro Behandlung führen kann. Weiters gibt es einen geringen aber statistisch signifikanten Unterschied der Inklination der unteren Schneidezähne (1,5° weniger mit selbstligierenden Brackets). Andere Unterschiede konnten nicht festgestellt werden. Wissenschaftliche Beweise zugunsten der Verwendung selbstligierender Brackets fehlen in der Literatur. Die verkürzte Behandlungszeit pro Termin und die geringfügig reduzierte Schneidezahninklination im Unterkiefer scheinen die einzigen Vorteile gegenüber herkömmlichen Brackets zu sein.

Abstract

It has been claimed that treatment with self-ligating brackets is more efficient and less harmful than with conventional appliances. Based on a number of studies it may be concluded that the use of self-ligating appliances has a significant advantage with regard to chair time per visit. There seems to be a small but statistically significant difference in mandibular incisor inclination (1.5° less with self-ligating brackets). No other differences between the 2 systems are found. It can be concluded that evidence supporting the claims about advantages of self-ligating brackets is generally lacking. According to current scientific evidence shortened chair times and slightly less mandibular incisor proclination appear to be the only significant advantages of self-ligating bracket systems compared to conventional systems.

Schlüsselwörter

selbstligierende Brackets

Key words

self-ligating brackets

Literatur

  • 1 Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages.  Int J Orthod. 1935;  19 837-840
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Weinberger GL. SmartClip™Self-ligating appliance system utilization guide.  3M Unitek product literature. 2005; 
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tagawa D. From good to great. The Damon System vs. conventional appliances: a comparative study.  Clinical Impressions. 2006;  15 4-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Fansa M, Keilig L, Reimann S. et al . The leveling effectiveness of self-ligating and conventional brackets for complex tooth malalignments.  J Orofac Orthop. 2009;  70 285-296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference?.  Aust Orthod J. 2005;  21 123-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon2 vs. conventional twin brackets during initial alignment.  Angle Orthod. 2006;  76 480-485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 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 Dentofac Orthop. 2007;  132 208-216
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M. et al . Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;  134 470.e1-470.e8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G. et al . Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;  135 597-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 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 Dentofac Orthop. 2010;  137 12.e1-12.e6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Thorstenson GA. Ein systematischer Überblick über Gleitwiderstände an kieferorthopädischen Apparaturen.  Inf Orthod Kieferorthop. 2007;  39 1-5
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bourauel C, Husmann P, Höse N. et al . Die Friktion bei der bogengeführten Zahnbewegung – eine Übersicht.  Inf Orthod Kieferorthop. 2007;  39 18-26
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Brauchli LM, Senn C, Wichelhaus A. Active and passive self-ligation – a myth?.  Angle Orthod. 2011;  81 312-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El-Bialy TH. et al . Frictional resistance in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets – a systematic review.  Angle Orthod. 2009;  79 592-601
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Miles PG. Self-ligating vs. conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;  132 223-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mezomo M, de Lima ES, Macedo de Menezes L. et al . Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets. A randomized clinical trial.  Angle Orthod. 2011;  81 292-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Harradine N, Birnie D. Self-ligating brackets: theory and practice.  Chapter 11, p 207. ( http://www.excellenceinorthodontics.com )
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Southard TE, Marshall SD, Grosland NM. Friction does not increase anchorage loading.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;  131 412-414
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Damon D. Three keys to non-extraction therapy.  Ortho Tribune. 2006;  (1) 13-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Isiksal E, Hazar S, Akyalcin S. Smile esthetics: perception and comparison of treated and untreated smiles.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;  129 8-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Johnson DK, Smith RJ. Smile esthetics after orthodontic treatment with and without extraction of four first premolars.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1995;  108 162-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Gianelly AA. Arch width after extraction and nonextraction treatment.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;  123 25-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bowman SJ, Johnston Jr LE. The esthetic impact of extraction and nonextraction treatment on Caucasian patients.  Angle Orthod. 2000;  70 3-10
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Erdinc AE, Nanda RS, Dandajena TC. Profile changes of patients treated with and without premolar extractions.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;  132 324-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bokas J, Collett T. Effects of upper premolar extractions on the position of the upper lip.  Aust Orthod J. 2006;  22 31-37
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Burrow SJ. To extract or not to extract: a diagnostic decision, not a marketing decision.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;  133 341-342
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Yared KFG, Zenobio EG, Pacheco W. Periodontal status of mandibular central incisors after orthodontic proclination in adults.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;  130 6.e1-6.e8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pandis N, Polychropoulou A, Makou M. et al . Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets.  Eur J Orthod. 2010;  32 248-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Chen SSH, Greenlee GM, Kim JE. et al . Systematic review of self-ligating brackets.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;  137 726.e1-726.e18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sernetz F. Qualität und Normung orthodontischer Produkte aus der Sicht des Herstellers.  Kieferorthopädische Mitteilungen. 1993;  7 13-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Badawi HM, Toogood MW, Carey JPR. et al . Torque expression of self-ligating brackets.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;  133 721-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Joch A, Pichelmayer M, Weiland F. Bracket slot and archwire dimensions: manufacturing precision and third order clearance.  J Orthod. 2010;  37 241-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Gmyrek H, Bourauel C, Richter G. et al . Torque capacity of metal and plastic brackets with reference to materials, application, technology and biomechanics.  J Orofac Orthop. 2002;  63 113-128
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a prospective clinical trial.  Orthod Craniofac Res. 2006;  9 193-198
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Weiland F. The rotational play between self-ligating brackets and a fullsize archwire.  Nicht publiziert.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 DiBiase AT, Nasr IH, Scott P. et al . Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Camon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: A prospective randomized clinical trial.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;  139 e111-e116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Turkkahraman H, Özgür SM, Yesim BF. et al . Archwire ligation techniques, microbial colonization and periodontal status in orthodontically treated patients.  Angle Orthod. 2005;  75 231-236
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Harradine NWT. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now?.  J Orthod. 2003;  30 262-273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Van Gastel J, Quirynen M, Teughels W. et al . Influence of bracket design on microbial and periodontal parameters in vivo.  J Clin Periodontol. 2007;  34 423-431
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T. et al . Plaque retention by self-ligating vs. elastomeric orthodontic brackets: Quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;  135 426.e1-426.e9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Pandis N, Papaioannou W, Kontou E. et al . Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets.  Eur J Orthod. 2010;  32 94-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Pandis N, Vlachopoulos K, Polychronopoulou A. et al . Periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets.  Orthod Craniofac Res. 2008;  11 211-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Ren Y, Maltha JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Optimum force magnitude for rothodontic tooth movement: a systematic literature review.  Angle Orthod. 2003;  73 86-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Pandis N, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Comparative assessment of forces generated during simulated alignment with self-ligating and conventional brackets.  Eur J Orthod. 2009;  31 590-595
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Pandis N, Eliades T, Partowi S. et al . Forces exerted by conventional and self-ligating brackets during simulated first- and second order corrections.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;  133 738-742
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Petersen A, Rosenstein S, Kim KB. et al . Force decay of elastomeric ligatures: influence on unloading force compared to self-ligation.  Angle Orthod. 2009;  79 934-938
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Franchi L, Baccetti T, Camporesi M. et al . Forces released by nonconventional bracket or ligature systems during alignment of buccally displaced teeth.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;  136 316.e1-316.e6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Maijer R, Smith DC. Time savings with self-ligating brackets.  J Clin Orthod. 1990;  24 29-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1994;  106 472-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1997;  111 119-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs. self-ligating brackets: Effects of archwire size and material.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;  131 395-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Sergio P, Icopo C, Alessia R. et al . Time efficiency of self-ligating vs. conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems.  Prog Orthod. 2008;  9 74-80
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K. Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets.  Aust Orthod J. 2008;  24 102-109
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE. et al . Systematic review on self-ligating brackets.  Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;  137 726.e1-726.e8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar

Korrespondenzadresse

Univ.-Doz. Dr. Frank Weiland

Untere Schmiedgasse 16

A-8530 Deutschlandsberg

Österreich

Telefon: +43/(0)3462/27 43

Fax: +43/(0)3462/27 434

eMail: frank@weiland.at

      >