Root resorption, treatment time and extraction rate during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets

Jacobs, Collin; Gebhardt, Philipp F.; Jacobs, Viviana; Hechtner, Marlene; Meila, Dan; Wehrbein, Heinrich

doi:10.1186/1746-160x-10-2

Cited by 35 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The full-texts of the reserved ten studies were retrieved and assessed referring to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, seven studies [17–23] fulfilled the criteria and were included in present systematic review, five of which [17–21] were pooled for meta-analysis. A flow diagram of the study selection process was demonstrated in Fig.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu

et al. 2016

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the external apical root resorption (EARR) in patients receiving fixed orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets.MethodsStudies comparing the EARR between orthodontic patients using self-ligating or conventional brackets were identified through electronic search in databases including CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) and SIGLE, and manual search in relevant journals and reference lists of the included studies until Apr 2016. The extraction of data and risk of bias evaluation were conducted by two investigators independently. The original outcome underwent statistical pooling by using Review Manager 5.ResultsSeven studies were included in the systematic review, out of which, five studies were statistically pooled in meta-analysis. The value of EARR of maxillary central incisors in the self-ligating bracket group was significantly lower than that in the conventional bracket group (SMD −0.31; 95% CI: −0.60–−0.01). No significant differences in other incisors were observed between self−ligating and conventional brackets.ConclusionsCurrent evidences suggest self-ligating brackets do not outperform conventional brackets in reducing the EARR in maxillary lateral incisors, mandible central incisors and mandible lateral incisors. However, self-ligating brackets appear to have an advantage in protecting maxillary central incisor from EARR, which still needs to be confirmed by more high-quality studies.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Liu

et al. 2016

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some authors have reported significantly reduced treatment times for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional appliances [4], with a mean reduction of up to 4 months in treatment time (from 23.5 to 19.4 months; [5]), a majority of authors [6, 7, 21] have reported that self-ligating brackets are no more efficient than conventional ligated brackets in terms of tooth alignment, or that they are even inferior [14]. …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lingual orthodontic treatment duration: performance of two different completely customized multi-bracket appliances (Incognito and WIN) in groups with different treatment complexities

Knösel

Klang²,

Helms

et al. 2014

Head Face Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe occurrence of side-effects of fixed orthodontic therapy, such as white-spot lesions and root resorption, are known to be significantly more frequent with increasing duration of treatment. Multi-bracket treatment should be as short as possible, in order to minimize the risks of collateral damage to teeth. The aim of this non-randomized clinical trial was to compare treatment duration with each of two types of customized lingual orthodontic appliances (Incognito, 3 M-Unitek; WIN, DW LingualSystems), taking into account treatment complexity. The null-hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in active orthodontic treatment duration between them.MethodsOf 402 potentially eligible participants, a population sample of n = 376 subjects (nIncognito = 220; nWIN = 156; m/f 172/204; mean age ± SD 17.3 ± 7.7Y) treated in one orthodontic center (Bad Essen, Germany) with completely customized lingual appliances in upper and lower permanent dental arches was recruited with the inclusion criterion of initiated and completed lingual multi-bracket treatment within the assessment period of April 1st 2010 – Nov 30, 2013, and the exclusion criterion of less than 24 bracketed teeth. We used four-factorial ANOVA to assess the impact of the following factors: initial degree of severity of malocclusion (mild to moderate, S1; severe, S2), appliance type (Incognito; WIN), sex, and age group (<=16; >16 Y) on the duration of lingual multi-bracket treatment.ResultsOverall, mean treatment duration was 21.7 (SD 7.2) months, which was significantly shorter for WIN for both sub-groups of treatment complexity (S1: 17.96 mo; S2: 20.49 mo) compared to Incognito (S1: 22.7 mo; S2: 29.79 mo). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the main effects ‘appliance type’, and ‘severity’, independent of each other. Therefore, the null-hypothesis was rejected.ConclusionIn terms of treatment duration, the WIN appliance performed significantly better than the Incognito appliance. Consequently, subjects treated with the WIN appliance are expected to be exposed to lower risks of the typical side-effects associated with longer multi-bracket treatment durations, such as root resorption and enamel decalcification.

show abstract

“…Porém, alguns estudos 12,13 demonstraram não haver diferença significativa entre os AL e BC. Um estudo revelou que não ocorre diferença estatística na quantidade de reabsorção radicular apical externa (RRAE) entre os AL e BC e que os incisivos centrais inferiores foram os dentes mais afetados 12 .…”

Section: Reabsorção Radicularunclassified

“…Um estudo revelou que não ocorre diferença estatística na quantidade de reabsorção radicular apical externa (RRAE) entre os AL e BC e que os incisivos centrais inferiores foram os dentes mais afetados 12 . Outro estudo revelou que também não houve diferença significativa na reabsorção radicular entre os AL e BC para os casos de apinhamento severo anterior 13 .…”

Section: Reabsorção Radicularunclassified

Bráquetes autoligáveis – parte II

Fabre¹,

Mendonça²,

Cuoghi³

et al. 2016

Arch Health Invest

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoA evolução sistemática dos materiais ortodônticos impulsiona uma contínua inovação tecnológica com o objetivo de potencializar a biocompatibilidade dos tratamentos, tornando-os constantemente mais simples e eficientes. Mas, apesar de todo conteúdo publicado em revistas especializadas sobre os bráquetes autoligáveis (AL), o tema ainda é motivo de controversia, sobretudo mediante comparação da eficiência com os bráquetes convencionais (BC). Desse modo, o objetivo dessa revisão é fornecer embasamento científico para a utilização desses acessórios na rotina ortodôntica. Descritores: Movimentação Dentária; Desenho de Aparelho Ortodôntico; Fechamento de Espaço Ortodôntico. AbstractThe systematic evolution of orthodontic materials encourages a continuous technological innovation in order to enhance the biocompatibility of treatments, making them constantly simpler and more efficient. Nevertheless, despite all contents published in specialized periodicals on self-ligating brackets (SL), the subject is still a controversial matter, especially by comparing the efficiency with conventional brackets (CB ). Thus, the objective of this literature review bases on providing scientific basis for the use of these accessories in orthodontic routine. Descriptors: Tooth Movement; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Space Closure. ResumenLa evolución sistemática de los materiales de ortodoncia fomenta una innovación tecnológica continua con el fin de mejorar la biocompatibilidad de los tratamientos, lo que constantemente más simple y más eficiente. Pero a pesar de todo el contenido publicado en revistas especializadas en los soportes de autoligables (AL), el tema es todavía un tema de controversia, sobre todo mediante la comparación de la eficiencia con los brackets convencionales (BC). Por lo tanto, el objetivo de esta revisión es proporcionar una base científica para el uso de tales accesorios en la rutina de ortodoncia. Descriptores: Movimiento Dentario; Diseño de Aparato Ortodóncico; Cierre del Espacio Ortodóncico.

show abstract

Root resorption, treatment time and extraction rate during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets

Cited by 35 publications

References 38 publications

Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lingual orthodontic treatment duration: performance of two different completely customized multi-bracket appliances (Incognito and WIN) in groups with different treatment complexities

Bráquetes autoligáveis – parte II

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About