An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate two different treatment systems with regard to incisor position, transverse dimension changes in maxillary arch, changes in maxillary molar inclinations, clinical periodontal parameters, and pain intensity in patients with a Class I malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Seventeen patients (with a mean age of 14.5 years) underwent orthodontic treatment with the Roth prescribed edgewise bracket systems after expanding the maxillary arch with a quad-helix appliance, and 16 patients (with a mean age of 14.8 years) underwent orthodontic treatment with the Damon 3MX bracket system. Each subject's lateral cephalometric and posteroanterior radiographs and dental casts were obtained at the beginning of the treatment and after debonding. In addition to these, the periodontal index and pain scores were taken. Results: Cephalometric data showed that in both treatment systems, overjet value decreased and maxillary and mandibular incisors proclined. Posteroanterior measurements demonstrated a greater increase in the maxillary molar inclination in the Damon group. Significant increase of maxillary intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths was shown in both systems. Periodontal index and pain score changes between different observation periods were the same. Conclusions: The conventional and Damon systems were found similar with regard to the incisor position, transverse dimension changes in maxillary arch, clinical periodontal parameters, and pain intensity. The only significant difference was that the Damon system inclined the maxillary molars more buccally than the conventional group. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:615-622.)

Effects of self‐ligating brackets on oral hygiene and discomfort: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

“…Five studies reported discomfort of pain experience during the orthodontic treatment . Four of them reported the levels by VAS at 4 h, 24 h, 3 days and 7 days .…”

“…Several studies focused on discomfort of pain experiences after treatment with SLBs or CBs give controversial findings that bracket type may produce more or produce less discomfort . Moreover, a systematic review aimed to make a conclusion did not distinguish between active and passive types .…”

Are self-ligating brackets an advantageous alternative for non-extraction treatments?

“…The research findings failed to prove that self-ligating brackets caused less pain than conventional brackets 3,9,40 .…”

“…There is no consensus: the majority of studies find no difference in the labial inclination or mandibular position between the self-ligating and non self-ligating groups 3,21,32 and show that labial inclination and buccal position is in relation to other factors inherent to the patient.…”

“…The inter-canine, inter-premolar and inter-molar distance increased in the two cases. However, it should be noted that cases with conventional brackets required using a quad helix whereas, with self-ligating brackets, the quad helix was not used 3 .…”