None.

www.scielo.br/jaos http://dx

Introduction: Debris buildup on the bracket-wire interface can influence friction. Cleansing brackets with air-powder polishing can affect this process. Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the frictional force and amount of debris remaining on orthodontic brackets subjected to prophylaxis with air-powder polishing. Methods: Frictional force and debris buildup on the surface of 28 premolar brackets were evaluated after orthodontic treatment. In one hemiarch, each bracket was subjected to air-powder polishing (n = 14) for five seconds, while the contralateral hemiarch (n = 14) served as control. Mechanical friction tests were performed and images of the polished bracket surfaces and control surfaces were examined. Wilcoxon test was applied for comparative analysis between hemiarches at p < 0.05. Results: Brackets that had been cleaned with air-powder polishing showed lower friction (median = 1.27 N) when compared to the control surfaces (median = 4.52 N) (p < 0.01). Image analysis showed that the control group exhibited greater debris buildup (median = 2.0) compared with the group that received prophylaxis with air-powder polishing (median = 0.5) (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Cleansing orthodontic brackets with air-powder polishing significantly reduces debris buildup on the bracket surface while decreasing friction levels observed during sliding mechanics.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess the efficiency of compensatory orthodontic treatment of patients with mild Class III malocclusion with two preadjusted bracket systems. Method: Fifty-six matched patients consecutively treated for mild Class III malocclusion through compensatory dentoalveolar movements were retrospectively evaluated after analysis of orthodontic records. The sample was divided into two groups according to the brackets used: Group 1 = non-Class III compensated preadjusted brackets, Roth prescription (n = 28); Group 2 = compensated Class III preadjusted brackets, Capelozza III prescription (n = 28). Cephalometric analysis, number of appointments and missed appointments, months using Class III elastics, and bond/band failures were considered. Treatment time, Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) index at the beginning (PAR T1) and end of treatment (PAR T2) were used to calculate treatment efficiency. Comparison was performed using a MANOVA at p< 0.05. Results: Missed appointments, bond or band failures, number of months using the Class III intermaxillary elastics, and cephalometric measurements showed no statistically significant difference (p> 0.05) between groups. Patients treated with Roth brackets had a treatment time 7 months longer (p= 0.01). Significant improvement in the patient’s occlusion (PAR T2-T1) was observed for both groups without difference (p= 0.22). Conclusions: Orthodontic brackets designed for compensation of mild Class III malocclusions appear to be more efficient than non-compensated straight-wire prescription brackets. Treatment time for Class III patients treated with brackets designed for compensation was shorter than with Roth prescription and no difference in the quality of the occlusal outcome was observed. A prospective randomized study is suggested to provide a deeper look into this subject.