Interactive edgewise mechanisms: Form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets

Objective:To compare the amount of expressed frictional resistance between orthodontic selfligating brackets and conventionally ligated brackets in vitro as reported in the literature. Methods: Several electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched without limits. In vitro studies that addressed friction of self-ligating brackets compared with conventionally ligated brackets were selected and reviewed. In addition, a search was performed by going through the reference lists of the selected articles to identify any paper that could have been missed by the electronic searches. Results: A total of 70 papers from the electronic database searches and 3 papers from the secondary search were initially obtained. After applying the selection criteria, only 19 papers were included in this review. A wide range of methods were applied. Conclusions: Compared with conventional brackets, self-ligating brackets produce lower friction when coupled with small round archwires in the absence of tipping and/or torque in an ideally aligned arch. Sufficient evidence was not found to claim that with large rectangular wires, in the presence of tipping and/or torque and in arches with considerable malocclusion, self-ligating brackets produce lower friction compared with conventional brackets. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79: 592-601.)

Section: Search Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frictional Resistance in Self-Ligating Orthodontic Brackets and Conventionally Ligated Brackets

Ehsani

Mandich

El‐Bialy

et al. 2009

“…3 Active, passive, and interactive self-ligating systems have since been developed. [4][5][6][7] Several studies have indicated that passive selfligating brackets generate lower frictional forces than active self-ligating brackets, modified ligatures, and conventional bracket systems. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Most research has focused on comparing ligation methods, and very little studies have investigated the effect of slot bevel design on frictional resistance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of bracket bevel design and oral environmental factors on frictional resistance

Chang¹,

Lee²,

Liu³

2013

Objective: To investigate the effects of bracket bevel design and oral environmental factors (saliva, temperature) on frictional resistance. Materials and Methods: Five types of brackets, namely a conventional bracket (Omni-arch), an active self-ligating bracket (Clippy), and three passive self-ligating brackets (Carriere, Damon, and Tenbrook T1) coupled with a 0.014-inch austenitic nickel-titanium archwire were tested. In the experimental model, which used a group of five identical brackets, the center bracket was displaced 3 mm to mimic the binding effects. The friction experiments were performed at three temperatures (20uC, 37uC, 55uC) in a dry or a wet (artificial saliva) state. Finally, the surfaces of the bracket slots were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after the friction tests. Results: The sliding frictional force was significantly influenced by the bracket slot bevel and saliva whether in the active or passive configuration (P , .05). The frictional force significantly increased as the temperature increased in the active configuration (P , .01). Based on the SEM observations, a correlation was found among the level of frictional force, the bevel angle, and the depth of scratches on bracket bevels. Conclusion: Frictional force can be reduced by increasing the bevel angle and by lowering the oral temperature, whereas the presence of saliva increases frictional resistance. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:956-965.)

“…Studies have shown that self-ligating brackets have less friction during sliding mechanics than conventionally ligated counterparts, and Damon brackets in particular have exhibited less friction than ligated brackets. [1][2][3][4] Some practitioners claim that the reduced frictional levels of self-ligating brackets lead to faster treatment progress, fewer appointments, and reduced treatment times. [5][6][7] The Damon philosophy also states that biologically friendly light forces do not overpower the musculature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system

Vajaria¹,

BeGole²,

Kusnoto³

et al. 2011

Objectives: To test the hypotheses that the Damon system will maintain intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths. To test subsequent hypotheses that the Damon system will not produce a significant difference in maxillary and mandibular incisor position/angulation when compared with control groups treated with conventional fixed orthodontic appliances for similar malocclusion. Materials and Methods: Subjects treated with the Damon system (N 5 27) were compared with subjects treated with a conventionally ligated edgewise bracket system (N 5 16). Subjects' pretreatment and posttreatment lateral cephalometric radiographs and dental models were scanned, measured, and compared to see whether significant differences exist between time points and between the two groups. Results: Results did not support the claimed lip bumper effect of the Damon system and showed similar patterns of crowding alleviation, including transverse expansion and incisor advancement, in both groups, regardless of the bracket system used. Conclusions: Maxillary and mandibular intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths increased significantly after treatment with the Damon system. The mandibular incisors were significantly advanced and proclined after treatment with the Damon system, contradicting the lip bumper theory of Damon. Posttreatment incisor inclinations did not differ significantly between the Damon group and the control group. Patients treated with the Damon system completed treatment on average 2 months faster than patients treated with a conventionally ligated standard edgewise bracket system. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:647-652.)