Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This prospective study investigated the difference in clinical efficiency between Damon™ 3 self-ligating brackets (SLB) compared with Mini Diamond conventional ligating brackets (CLBs) during tooth alignment in straightwire fixed appliance therapy. Twenty-nine patients (10 males and 19 females), aged between 14 and 30 years, were randomly divided into two groups: 14 patients received the SLB and 15 received the CLB. Upper arch impressions were taken for pre-treatment records (T0). A transpalatal arch was soldered to both maxillary first molar bands prior to extraction of the maxillary first premolars, followed by straightwire fixed appliances (0.022 × 0.028 inch). A 0.014 inch nickel titanium (NiTi) wire was used as the levelling and aligning archwire. Four monthly reviews were undertaken and impressions of the upper arch were taken at each appointment (T1, T2, T 3, and T4). Displacements of the teeth were determined using Little's irregularity index (LII). Data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. In the aligning stage, the CLB group showed significantly faster alignment of the teeth compared with the SLB group at the T 1-T2 interval (P < 0.05). However, there were no differences at T2-T3, and T3-T4 for either group (P > 0.05). The CLB group showed 98 per cent crowding alleviation compared with 67 per cent for the SLB after 4 months of alignment and levelling. Mini Diamond brackets aligned the teeth faster than Damon™ 3 but only during the first month. There was no difference in efficacy between the two groups in the later 3 weeks. Alleviation of crowding was faster with CLB than with SLB.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)176-181
Number of pages6
JournalEuropean Journal of Orthodontics
Volume34
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Apr 2012

Fingerprint

Tooth
Diamond
Bicuspid
Nonparametric Statistics
Appointments and Schedules
Prospective Studies
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. / Megat Abdul Wahab, Rohaya; Idris, Hartini; Yacob, Habibah; Zainal Ariffin, Shahrul Hisham.

In: European Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 34, No. 2, 04.2012, p. 176-181.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{f370c5c9e43145d6a94b8df458dea6a9,
title = "Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage",
abstract = "This prospective study investigated the difference in clinical efficiency between Damon™ 3 self-ligating brackets (SLB) compared with Mini Diamond conventional ligating brackets (CLBs) during tooth alignment in straightwire fixed appliance therapy. Twenty-nine patients (10 males and 19 females), aged between 14 and 30 years, were randomly divided into two groups: 14 patients received the SLB and 15 received the CLB. Upper arch impressions were taken for pre-treatment records (T0). A transpalatal arch was soldered to both maxillary first molar bands prior to extraction of the maxillary first premolars, followed by straightwire fixed appliances (0.022 × 0.028 inch). A 0.014 inch nickel titanium (NiTi) wire was used as the levelling and aligning archwire. Four monthly reviews were undertaken and impressions of the upper arch were taken at each appointment (T1, T2, T 3, and T4). Displacements of the teeth were determined using Little's irregularity index (LII). Data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. In the aligning stage, the CLB group showed significantly faster alignment of the teeth compared with the SLB group at the T 1-T2 interval (P < 0.05). However, there were no differences at T2-T3, and T3-T4 for either group (P > 0.05). The CLB group showed 98 per cent crowding alleviation compared with 67 per cent for the SLB after 4 months of alignment and levelling. Mini Diamond brackets aligned the teeth faster than Damon™ 3 but only during the first month. There was no difference in efficacy between the two groups in the later 3 weeks. Alleviation of crowding was faster with CLB than with SLB.",
author = "{Megat Abdul Wahab}, Rohaya and Hartini Idris and Habibah Yacob and {Zainal Ariffin}, {Shahrul Hisham}",
year = "2012",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1093/ejo/cjq179",
language = "English",
volume = "34",
pages = "176--181",
journal = "European Journal of Orthodontics",
issn = "0141-5387",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage

AU - Megat Abdul Wahab, Rohaya

AU - Idris, Hartini

AU - Yacob, Habibah

AU - Zainal Ariffin, Shahrul Hisham

PY - 2012/4

Y1 - 2012/4

N2 - This prospective study investigated the difference in clinical efficiency between Damon™ 3 self-ligating brackets (SLB) compared with Mini Diamond conventional ligating brackets (CLBs) during tooth alignment in straightwire fixed appliance therapy. Twenty-nine patients (10 males and 19 females), aged between 14 and 30 years, were randomly divided into two groups: 14 patients received the SLB and 15 received the CLB. Upper arch impressions were taken for pre-treatment records (T0). A transpalatal arch was soldered to both maxillary first molar bands prior to extraction of the maxillary first premolars, followed by straightwire fixed appliances (0.022 × 0.028 inch). A 0.014 inch nickel titanium (NiTi) wire was used as the levelling and aligning archwire. Four monthly reviews were undertaken and impressions of the upper arch were taken at each appointment (T1, T2, T 3, and T4). Displacements of the teeth were determined using Little's irregularity index (LII). Data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. In the aligning stage, the CLB group showed significantly faster alignment of the teeth compared with the SLB group at the T 1-T2 interval (P < 0.05). However, there were no differences at T2-T3, and T3-T4 for either group (P > 0.05). The CLB group showed 98 per cent crowding alleviation compared with 67 per cent for the SLB after 4 months of alignment and levelling. Mini Diamond brackets aligned the teeth faster than Damon™ 3 but only during the first month. There was no difference in efficacy between the two groups in the later 3 weeks. Alleviation of crowding was faster with CLB than with SLB.

AB - This prospective study investigated the difference in clinical efficiency between Damon™ 3 self-ligating brackets (SLB) compared with Mini Diamond conventional ligating brackets (CLBs) during tooth alignment in straightwire fixed appliance therapy. Twenty-nine patients (10 males and 19 females), aged between 14 and 30 years, were randomly divided into two groups: 14 patients received the SLB and 15 received the CLB. Upper arch impressions were taken for pre-treatment records (T0). A transpalatal arch was soldered to both maxillary first molar bands prior to extraction of the maxillary first premolars, followed by straightwire fixed appliances (0.022 × 0.028 inch). A 0.014 inch nickel titanium (NiTi) wire was used as the levelling and aligning archwire. Four monthly reviews were undertaken and impressions of the upper arch were taken at each appointment (T1, T2, T 3, and T4). Displacements of the teeth were determined using Little's irregularity index (LII). Data were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. In the aligning stage, the CLB group showed significantly faster alignment of the teeth compared with the SLB group at the T 1-T2 interval (P < 0.05). However, there were no differences at T2-T3, and T3-T4 for either group (P > 0.05). The CLB group showed 98 per cent crowding alleviation compared with 67 per cent for the SLB after 4 months of alignment and levelling. Mini Diamond brackets aligned the teeth faster than Damon™ 3 but only during the first month. There was no difference in efficacy between the two groups in the later 3 weeks. Alleviation of crowding was faster with CLB than with SLB.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84859357881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84859357881&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/ejo/cjq179

DO - 10.1093/ejo/cjq179

M3 - Article

VL - 34

SP - 176

EP - 181

JO - European Journal of Orthodontics

JF - European Journal of Orthodontics

SN - 0141-5387

IS - 2

ER -