Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2017; 49(01): 49-55
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-104887
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Vergleich von konventionellen und selbstligierenden Brackets in der Nivellierungsphase mittels Split-Mouth-Design

Comparison of Conventional and Self-Ligating Brackets During Alignment
Elisabeth Astl
1   Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Universitätszahnklinik Wien, Österreich
,
Kanji Onodera
2   Department of Craniofacial Growth and Development, Kanagawa Dental College, Yokosaka, Japan
,
Ales Čelar
1   Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Universitätszahnklinik Wien, Österreich
,
Philipp Mitteröcker
3   Abteilung für theoretische Biologie, Universität Wien, Österreich
,
Hans-Peter Bantleon
1   Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Universitätszahnklinik Wien, Österreich
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 April 2017 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

In der vorliegenden Studie wurde ein selbstligierender mit einem konventionellen Brackettyp auf die Effektivität der Zahnbewegung während der Nivellierungsphase verglichen. Dabei wurden beide Brackettypen simultan verwendet, nämlich zufällig in der linken und rechten Gebisshälfte.

21 Patienten (4 männliche und 17 weibliche) im Alter von 11 bis 36 Jahren mit annähernd symmetrischer Malokklusion nahmen teil. Von diesen Patienten wurden Ober- und Unterkiefermodelle zu 2 verschiedenen Zeitpunkten angefertigt (t₀ Anfangszustand vor Behandlung und t1 Zustand nach Nivellierung). Um einen direkten Vergleich der beiden Bracketsysteme innerhalb eines Individuums zu bewerkstelligen, kam das Split-Mouth-Design zum Einsatz. Die Patienten hatten jeweils im 1. und 4. Quadranten sowie im 2. und 3. den gleichen Brackettyp, SmartClip® (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA; = SLB) bzw. Standard Edgewise (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, USA; = KLB).

Die Kiefermodelle wurden mithilfe des 3D-Digitalisierungsgerätes MicroScribe® G2X (Immersion, San Jose, USA) vermessen. Die Auswertung der 3-D-Koordinaten jedes Zahnes erfolgte mittels geometrisch morphometrischer Analyse, Hauptkomponentenanalyse und Prokrustes-Analyse.

Obwohl das Ausmaß an Zahnbewegung zwischen KLB und SLB unterschiedlich ausfiel und auf der KLB-Seite deutlicher ausgeprägter war, zeigten sich keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede (p >0,1) zwischen den linken und rechten Zahnbogenhälften in den ersten 6 Monaten festsitzender Kieferorthopädie.

Abstract

This article deals with the efficiency of SmartClip® self-ligating brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) and a conventional bracket (Standard Edgewise, American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wisconsin, USA) regarding tooth movement in the alignment stage of orthodontic treatment. Both bracket types were used simultaneously within a split-mouth design with random assignment to the right or the left side of the jaws.

21 patients (4 were male, 17 female), aged from 11 to 36 years with symmetrical malocclusions were included.

With a 3-D digitizer (MicroScribe® G2X, Immersion, San Jose, USA) the position of the teeth were measured at baseline (t₀) and after alignment (t1) on plaster models. The 3-D coordinates of each tooth were analyzed by geometric morphometric analysis, principal component analysis and Procrustes analysis.

The differences in tooth movement between self-ligated and conventionally ligated teeth were slightly more pronounced on the conventional ligation side, but there were no statistically significant differences of tooth movement from t₀ to t₁ (p >0.1).

Schlüsselwörter

Split-Mouth-Design - selbstligierende Brackets - geometrisch morphometrische Analyse

Key words

split-mouth design - self-ligating brackets - geometric morphometrics
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Vogels III DS. et al. 2014 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2014; 48: 607-630
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH. et al. III. 2002 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2002; 36: 553-568
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Stolzenberg J. The Russel attachment and it’s improved advantages. Int J Orthod Dent Child 1935; 21: 837-840
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Berger JL. The influence of the SPEED bracket’s self-ligating design on force levels in tooth movement: a comparative in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 97: 219-228
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Matarese G, Nucera R, Militi A. et al. Evaluation of frictional forces during dental alignment: An experimental model with 3 nonleveled brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008; 133: 708-715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4: 220-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chen SSH, Greenlee GM, Kim JE. et al. Systematic review of selfligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 726.e1-726.e18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975; 68: 554-563
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Rohlf FJ, Slice DE. Extensions of the Prucrustes method for the optimal superimposition of landmarks. Syst Zool 1990; 39: 40-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Mitteroecker P, Gunz P. Advances in geometric morphometrics. Evolutionary Biol 2009; 36: 235-247
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Halazonetis DJ. Morphometrics for cephalometric diagnosis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 571-581
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Good P. Permutation tests: a practical guide to resampling methods for testing hypotheses. New York: Springer; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 13 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Johansson K, Lündström F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 929-934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP. et al. Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 138.e1-138.e7
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Miles PG, Weyant R. Porcelaine brackets during initial alignment: Are self-ligating cosmetic brackets more efficient?. Aust Orthod J 2010; 26: 21-26
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Marshall SD, Currier GF, Hatch NE. et al. Self-ligating bracket claims. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 128-131
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Frantz RC. Achieving excellence in orthodontics with a self-ligating appliance system. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KW. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 2005: 835-836
    Google Scholar
  • 19 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 208-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 470.e1-470.e8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Fleming PS, 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference?. Aust Orthod J 2005; 21: 123-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2™ vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 480-485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Harradine NWT, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activia brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 109: 319-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Prettyman C, Best AM, Lindauer SJ. et al. Self-ligating vs. conventional brackets as perceived by orthodontists. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 1060-1066
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Wahab RM, Idris H, Yacob H. et al. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34: 176-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Kyomen S, Tanne K. Influences of aging changes in proliferative rate of PDL cells during experimental tooth movement in rats. Angle Orthod 1997; 67: 67-72
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Burrow SJ. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics. A critical review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 442-447
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bantleon H-P. The mechanical background of binding in a three-bracketrelationship simulating a premolar, canine and lateral incisor in levelling. Orthod Waves 2011; 70: 53-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 575-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and selfligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 472-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 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