E-mail address: dranchal.atreja@gmail.com (P. Juneja).Available online at www.sciencedirect.com ScienceDirect journal homepage: www .e lsev ie r. co m/ lo cate/ mj afi m e d i c a l j o u r n a l a r m e d f o r c e s i n d i a 7 1 ( 2 0 1 5 ) S 3 6 2 eS 3 6 8http://dx

No abstract

Most often the missing teeth are conventionally managed with either implants or other fixed or removable prostheses. This article describes another possibility of orthodontically closing these spaces, thereby restoring an ideal occlusion and arch integrity without the need of prosthesis. This article presents case reports where the spaces of missing teeth were closed orthodontically, leaving no room for prosthesis, thereby providing a physiologically balanced occlusion and avoiding the lifelong maintenance of prosthesis. How to cite this article Restorative – Orthodontics: A substitution for missing teeth. G. Shivaprakash, CODS J Dent 2015;7:36-38.

The awareness about orthodontics has lead to drastic increase in many adult & adolescent seeking orthodontic treatment over the past decade. The two major setbacks for non acceptance include visibility of the appliance and the long duration of treatment. To overcome the aboveinvisible braces like-ceramic brackets, lingual brackets came into existence, but could not reduce the treatment time to a greater extent. Later surgical procedures like periodontal distraction, dentoalvelor distraction & inclusion of implant came to play. But involved surgical risk. To overcome these-the invisible braces so called clear aligners came into existence. Clear aligners are a series of clear, removable teeth aligners that orthodontists use as an alternative to traditional metal/ceramic braces. They are more comfortable, kinder to tissues and used for minor orthodontic corrections.

Objectives: Self-ligating brackets are becoming more common in the marketplace with many manufacturers offering one form or another. A number of studies have evaluated the frictional characteristics of different self-ligating brackets but there have been only few studies which have actually evaluated their clinical efficiency. The present study was done to compare the efficiency and effectiveness of three contemporary selfligating bracket systems (Smart Clip, Damon 2, In-Ovation). Materials and methods:This was a prospective in vivo study in which a total of 18 patients were randomly divided into three groups treated with Smart Clip, Damon 2 and In-Ovation bracket systems. The total treatment time and the number of appointments required to complete the treatment were recorded. As a measure of quality of treatment, the ABO scores were measured at the end of treatment from the post-treatment dental casts and OPG. Results:The average time taken for the completion of treatment in Smart Clip, Damon 2, and In-Ovation group was 14.0 ± 2.6, 15.3 ± 3.2 and 17.2 ± 3.2 months respectively. The total number of appointments required for the completion of treatment in Smart Clip, Damon 2, and In-Ovation group were 16.0 ± 2.5, 16.8 ± 3.3 and 19.8 ± 2.6 respectively. The mean ABO score in Smart Clip, Damon 2, and In-Ovation group were 26.2 ± 1.0, 27.5 ± 2.3 and 27.0 ± 1.3 respectively. Interpretation and conclusion:There was no statistically significant difference in the treatment time, number of appointments and quality of treatment outcome between the three bracket systems.