Systematic review of self-ligating brackets

Chen, Stephanie Shih Hsuan; Greenlee, Geoffrey M.; Kim, Jihyun Elizabeth; Smith, Craig L.; Huang, Greg J.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.11.009

Cited by 169 publications

(179 citation statements)

References 86 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Though, some studies have shown a greater increase in intermolar width with self-ligating brackets [Jiang and Fu, 2008;Scott et al, 2008;Pandis et al, 2010], their meta-analysis did not find any significant differences in the intercanine and intermolar widths between the two bracket systems [Chen et al, 2010]. For incisor proclination, a meta-analysis indicated that selfligating brackets resulted in slightly less mandibular incisor proclination (1.5 degrees) [Chen et al, 2010].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The occlusal quality was evaluated in the meta-analysis by Chen et al [2010], which included three studies, resulting in no significant difference at the end of treatment [Eberting et al, 2001;Harradine, 2001;Hamilton et al, 2008]. An identical result was obtained for both treatment time and occlusal quality outcomes in the meta-analysis of these three retrospective studies, two of which were smaller studies with passive selfligating brackets, and one larger study with active self-ligating brackets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent meta-analyses included only three retrospective studies due to significant methodological differences and found no difference in terms of reduced overall treatment time, number of visits, and efficiency of initial orthodontic alignment between selfligating brackets and conventional brackets. These meta-analyses concluded by indicating a lack of sufficient evidence to show that orthodontic treatment is more or less efficient with self-ligating brackets [Chen et al, 2010;. In spite of insufficient evidence for overall treatment time, some benefits, such as ease of ligation, and reduced chair time with the self-ligating brackets, were supported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The meta-analysis could include only two of these studies with high heterogeneity and contradictory results leading to an insignificant conclusion [Chen et al, 2010].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Retrospective investigation of the effects and efficiency of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Anand

Turpin

Jumani

et al. 2015

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Retrospective Investigation of the Effects and Efficiency of Self-ligating and Conventional BracketsMegha AnandChairperson of the Supervisory Committee: Greg J. Huang Department of Orthodontics Introduction: Marketing strategies for self-ligating brackets have focused on less need for extractions and faster treatment. Recent meta-analyses have not found these claims to be well supported, but they point out limitations of the current evidence. These meta-analyses also conclude that additional, well-designed studies are indicated to improve our evidence base. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study is to assess the effects and efficiency of treatment with self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. A secondary purpose is to identify any pretreatment malocclusion characteristics associated with choice of either self-ligating or conventional brackets. Methods: Patients treated in the private offices of two practitioners who simultaneously used both self-ligating and conventional brackets were selected for this study. The self-ligating subjects were selected first, and for each subject, an age and gender matched subject was chosen from the respective office. The self-ligation subjects were consecutively treated adolescents and young adults (11-25 years-old) who completed comprehensive fixed appliance therapy between January 1, 2011 and April 31, 2012. Patients with craniofacial anomalies, surgical treatment, treatment with arch expansion using expanders, interdisciplinary treatment, and incomplete records were excluded. The outcome measures were changes in the intercanine width, intermolar width, and arch length for both arches, change in mandibular incisor inclination, final PAR score, percent PAR reduction, overall treatment time, total number of visits, number of emergencies, number of broken brackets, and other emergencies such as a wire sliding to one side or the loss of ligation. All measurements were performed on digital models or digital lateral cephalograms in a blinded manner. PAR scores were measured by two calibrated assessors and the average of the two scores were used. Data were analyzed using the independent sample t-test, chi-square or fisher exact test and linear regression analysis. Results: The final sample comprised 74 patients from Clinician 1, and 34 patients from Clinician 2. The two clinicians exhibited significant differences in treatment duration, as well as in treatment strategies, such as the use of the SureSmile technique. Therefore, the decision was made not to pool the data from the two offices. For Clinician 1, no significant differences were observed between self-ligating and conventional brackets for the outcomes described above, other than increased arch length in both arches in the self-ligating group. The self-ligation patients treated by Clinician 2 demonstrated a significant increase in transverse dimension, less percent reduction in PAR score, less treatment time, fewer visits, and more wire sliding emergencies compared to the conventional bracke...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The meta-analysis could include only two of these studies with high heterogeneity and contradictory results leading to an insignificant conclusion [Chen et al, 2010].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Retrospective investigation of the effects and efficiency of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Anand

Turpin

Jumani

et al. 2015

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Shortened chair time and slightly less incisor proclination appear to be the only significant advantages of self-ligating systems over conventional systems that are supported by the current evidence. 23 On the other hand, Pandis et al 15 found no difference in time required to correct mandibular crowding with Damon 2 as compared to conventional brackets. Miles et al 13,14 showed in detailed clinical studies that Smart Clip and Damon brackets are no more effective than the conventional brackets ligated with elastomeric modules or stainless steel ligatures during the leveling and aligning stages of treatment and that the Smart Clip and Damon brackets were equally effective during leveling and aligning stage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%