PDF herunterladen
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2014; 08(01): 023-031
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.126236
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

A comparative in-vivo evaluation of the alignment efficiency of 5 ligation methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial

Vijaya Bhaskara Reddy
1   Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Talapaneni Ashok Kumar
1   Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Mandava Prasad
1   Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Sivakumar Nuvvula
2   Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Rajedra Goud Patil
3   Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
,
Praveen Kumar Reddy
1   Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh, India
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

Publikationsdatum:
24. September 2019 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
  als PDF herunterladen Lizenzen und Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To conduct a prospective randomized study comparing the efficiency of 5 different ligation systems (ELL; elastomeric ligature, SSL; stainless steel ligature, LL; leone slide ligature, PSL; passive self-ligation and ASL; active self-ligation) over the duration of mandibular crowding alleviation. Materials and Methods: Fifty consecutive patients (54.2% male, 45.8% female; mean age: 16.69 years) satisfying the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated to 5 ligation groups with an equal sample size of 10 per group. The 5 groups received treatment with 0.022-inch MBT pre-adjusted edge-wise technique (ELL: Gemini 3M Unitek, SSL: Gemini 3M Unitek, LL: Gemini 3M Unitek, PSL: SmartClip 3M Unitek and ASL: In-Ovation R Euro GAC International). The models and cephalograms were evaluated for anterior arch alignment, extraction space closure, and lower incisal inclinations at pre-treatment T1 and at the end of initial alignment T2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Post-hoc tests were used for data analysis. Results: Forty-eight participants completed the study, and SL systems showed a significant difference over CL groups in time to alignment, passive space closure, and incisal inclination. Multiple regression showed a reduction of 5.28 days in time to alignment by changing the ligation group in the order of ELL to ASL group and 1 mm increase in initial irregularity index increases time to alignment by 11.68 days. Conclusion: Self-ligation brackets were more efficient than conventional ligation brackets during initial leveling and alignment.

Key words:

Conventional - crowding - friction - leone ligatures - ligation - self-ligation
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Cobb 3rd NW, Kula KS, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Efficiency of multi-strand steel, superelastic Ni-Ti and ion-implanted Ni-Ti archwires for initial alignment. Clin Orthod Res 1998; 1: 12-9
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 O'Brien K, Lewis D, Shaw W, Combe E. A clinical trial of aligning archwires. Eur J Orthod 1990; 12: 380-4
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 West AE, Jones ML, Newcombe RG. Multiflex versus superelastic: A randomized clinical trial of the tooth alignment ability of initial arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995; 108: 464-71
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Traini T, Di Iorio D, D'Attilio M. Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 1041-5
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: Present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 216-22
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: Where are we now?. J Orthod 2003; 30: 262-73
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 472-80
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 589-96
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Franchi L, Baccetti T, Camporesi M, Barbato E. Forces released during sliding mechanics with passive self-ligating brackets or nonconventional elastomeric ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 87-90
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K. Comparision of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Aust Orthod J 2008; 24: 102-9
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4: 220-7
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 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: 208-15
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 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
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 248-53
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 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: 738-42
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 18 DiBiase 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: e111-6
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs. conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 480-5
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Miles PG. Self-ligating vs. conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 223-5
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: Is there a difference. Aust Orthod J 2005; 21: 123-7
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne M. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 470.e1-8
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Johansson K, Lundström F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets. A prospective randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 929-34
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP, Ho C. Efficiency of self-ligating vs. conventional ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 138.e1-7
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 25 McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemised Orthodontic Treatment Mechanics. Edinburgh: Mosby; 2001: p. 101-2
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Little RM. The irregularity index: A quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975; 68: 554-63
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Berger JL. The influence of SPEED bracket's self-ligating design on force levels in tooth movement: A comparative in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 97: 219-28
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 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: 377-85
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 29 Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement exvivo through three types of pre-adjusted brackets when subjected to determined tip or torque values. Br J Orthod 1994; 21: 367-73
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 30 Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparision of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod 1997; 24: 309-17
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 31 Thomas S, Sheriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in-vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 589-96
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 32 Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulations in the dry and wet (saliva) states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 361-70
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 33 Khambay B, Millett D, McHugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 327-32
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 34 Henao SP, Kusy RP. Frictional evaluation of dental typodont models using four self-ligating designs and a conventional design. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 75-85
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 35 Gandini P, Orsi L, Bertoncini C, Massironi S, Franchi L. In vitro frictional forces generated by three different ligation methods. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 917-21
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 36 AlQabandi AK, Sadowsky C, Begole EA. A comparison of the effects of rectangular and round arch wires in leveling the curve of Spee. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 522-9
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 37 Sandstrom RA, Klapper L, Papaconstantinou S. Expansion of the lower arch concurrent with rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 94: 296-302
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 38 Menendez M, Alarcon JA, Travesi A, Palma JC. Evaluation of dental arch width and form changes after orthodontic treatment with the Damon system. Proceedings of the International Orthodontic Conference. 2005. Paris, Chicago: Quintessence; 2005: p. 445
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 39 Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ. A comparision of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J Orthod 1993; 15: 377-85
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 40 Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 589-96
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar