Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2015; 47(04): 211-215
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1565210
Pro und Contra
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Selbstligierende Brackets erhöhen die Effizienz einer Behandlung[*]

Self-Ligating Brackets Increase Treatment Efficiency
N. Harradine
1   Bristol Dental Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
17 December 2015 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

* Dieser Artikel wurde im Original veröffentlicht in: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 143: 10–19. Der Abdruck erfolgt mit freundlicher Genehmigung der American Association of Orthodontists.


 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Hanson GH. JCO/interviews Dr. G. Herbert Hanson on the the SPEED bracket. J Clin Orthod 1986; 20: 183-189
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Harradine NW, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 109: 319-328
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Damon DH. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32: 670-680
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998; 1: 52-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4: 220-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM et al. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 292-297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Maijer R, Smith DC. Time savings with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 1990; 24: 29-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 472-480
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 111: 119-140
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs. self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 395-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ et al. 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement ex vivo through three types of pre-adjusted brackets when subjected to determined tip or torque values. Br J Orthod 1994; 21: 367-373
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 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
  • 14 Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie DJ. 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: 589-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Frictional resistance of the Damon SL bracket. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32: 485-489
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 283-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Meling TR, Ødegaard J, Holthe K et al. The effect of friction on the bending stiffness of orthodontic beams: a theoretical and in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112: 41-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Khambay B, Millett D, McHugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 327-332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 361-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 121: 472-482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effect of archwire size and material on the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 295-305
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effects of ligation type and method on the resistance to sliding of novel orthodontic brackets with second-order angulation in the wet and dry states. Angle Orthod 2003; 73: 418-430
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Brauchli LM, Senn C, Wichelhaus A. Active and passive self-ligation – a myth?. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 312-318
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pliska BT, Beyer JP, Larson BE. A comparison of resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets under an increasing applied moment. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 794-799
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 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 Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 708-715
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Heo W, Baek SH. Friction properties according to vertical and horizontal tooth displacement and bracket type during initial leveling and alignment. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 653-661
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Baccetti T, Franchi L, Camporesi M et al. Forces produced by different nonconventional bracket or ligature systems during alignment of apically displaced teeth. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 533-539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Franchi L, Bacetti T, Camporesi M et al. Forces released by nonconventional bracket or ligature systems during alignment of buccally displaced teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 316.e1-306.e6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 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
  • 30 Matasa CG. Brackets’ shape influences friction. Orthod Mater Insider 2001; 13: 2-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Crawford NL, McCarthy C, Murphy TC et al. Physical properties of conventional and Super Slick elastomeric ligatures after intraoral use. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 175-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 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
  • 33 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
  • 34 Tagawa D. The Damon system vs. conventional appliances: A comparative study. Clin Impressions 2006; 15: 4-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Vajaria R, BeGole E, Kusnoto B et al. Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 647-652
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 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
  • 37 Ollivere P. Treatment efficiency of self-ligating brackets. Orthod Update 2012; 5: 15-19
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference?. Aust Orthod J 2005; 21: 123-127
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 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
  • 40 Miles PG. Self-ligating vs. conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 223-225
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 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
  • 42 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
  • 43 Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G et al. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 597-602
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 575-584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE et al. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 726.e1-726.e18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Sandhu SS, Shetty VS, Mogra S et al. Efficiency, behavior, and clinical properties of superelastic NiTi versus multistranded stainless steel wires: a prospective clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 915-921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Pringle AM, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial to compare pain levels associated with 2 orthodontic fixed bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 160-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Scott P, Sherriff M, DiBiase AT et al. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 227-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G et al. Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 46-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Yamaguchi M, Takizawa T, Nakajima R et al. The Damon System and release of substance P in gingival crevicular fluid during orthodontic tooth movement in adults. World J Orthod 2009; 10: 141-146
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Badawi HM, Toogood RW, Carey JP et al. Three-dimensional orthodontic force measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 518-528
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Fok J, Toogood RW, Badawi H et al. Analysis of maxillary arch force/couple systems for a simulated high canine malocclusion: part 1. Passive ligation. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 953-959
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Fok J, Toogood RW, Badawi H et al. Analysis of maxillary arch force/couple systems for a simulated high canine malocclusion: part 2. Elastic ligation. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 960-965
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 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
  • 55 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
  • 56 Sifakakis I, Pandis N, Makou M et al. A comparative assessment of the forces and moments generated at the maxillary incisors between conventional and self-ligating brackets using a reverse curve of Spee NiTi archwire. Aust Orthod J 2010; 26: 127-133
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Pandis N, Eliades T, Partowi S et al. Moments generated during simulated rotational correction with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 1030-1034
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar