Vergleichende Bewertung der Dimensionen des Zahn- und des Kieferbogens von passiven und aktiven selbstligierenden gegenüber konventionellen Apparaturen

Alabdullah, Mohannad M.; Burhan, Ahmad S; Nabawia, Alaa; Nawaya, Fehmieh R; Saltaji, Humam

doi:10.1007/s00056-022-00407-5

Cited by 1 publication

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The outcomes are related to the archwire ligating method, in the case of conventional ones, and to the elastomeric ligatures, which retain higher levels of bacteria in plaque [41][42][43]. However, recent studies from our review suggest no strong evidence supports the superiority of one bracket type over the other in terms of periodontal clinical parameters and periodontal pathogens in subgingival plaque [25][26][27][38][39][40]. Controlling bacterial plaque in orthodontic patients is important to maintain gingival/periodontal health status, regardless of the bracket type used.…”

Section: Periodontal Healthmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Our review studies concluded some differences in the clinical outcomes achieved with different types of self-ligating brackets and conventional brackets [34][35][36][37][38].…”

Section: Incisor Position Modification With Torque Controlmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Palone et al (2021) [37] observed that PSLBs tend to increase torque values during treatment, which helps resolve misalignment and crowding. Alabdullah et al (2022) [38] concluded that there were no significant differences in the buccolingual inclination of the incisors between ASLBs, PSLBs, and CBs.…”

Section: Incisor Position Modification With Torque Controlmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the maxillary intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths were significantly greater after treatment in each bracket group (Atik et al, 2016) [36]. In a study published in 2022, Alabdullah MM et al [38] conducted a randomized clinical trial to compare the dimensions of dental and basal arches in PSLBs and ASLBs with conventional appliances. The study again revealed that there were no significant differences in maxillary intermolar width, basal arch dimensions, depth of arches, buccolingual inclination, and alignment duration among ASLBs, PSLBs, and conventional brackets.…”

Section: Transverse Arch Dimensional Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies with Some Differences between PSLB and ASLB/CB in Terms of Transverse Arch Dimensional ChangesStudies with No Differences between PSLB and ASLB/CB in Terms of Transverse Arch Dimensional ChangesEsteves et al (2019) [43] Atik and Ci ger (2014) [20] Mateu et al (2018) [23] Almeida et al (2015) [44] Bashir et al (2019) [47] Shook et al (2016) [45] Palone et al (2021) [37] Fleming et al (2013) [46] Atik et al (2016) [36]Alabdullah MM et al[38] …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Passive Self-Ligating Bracket Systems: A Scoping Review of Their Claims Regarding Efficiency and Effectiveness in Orthodontic Treatment

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Passive self-ligating bracket systems (PSLBs), such as the Damon® system (Ormco, US) and SmartClip (3M Unitek®, US) claim advantages over other types of brackets regarding efficiency and effectiveness. However, some studies have questioned their qualities, particularly during the alignment stage, in arch development, and regarding stability of results. This article aims to conduct a scoping review from the past decade’s literature (2013–2023) regarding these assertions about PSLBs. A comprehensive search was performed on several databases. With at least one comparison between PSLBs and the other two bracket types, the inclusion criteria were restricted to English-written randomized controlled trials and split-mouth design studies involving patients receiving orthodontic treatment using PSLB, active self-ligating bracket systems (ASLBs), or conventional/traditional bracket systems (CBs). After screening and manual analysis of the selected studies, only 39 were chosen for the review. Most of the efficiency and effectiveness results from research conducted in the past ten years did not indicate any appreciable differences between the three different types of brackets; therefore, the evidence on whether PSLB is better than CBs and ASLBs is equivocal. Further research is necessary to understand the distinctions between passive self-ligating and other bracket systems and establish the optimal utilization of each system in clinical settings.

show abstract

Section: Periodontal Healthmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Our review studies concluded some differences in the clinical outcomes achieved with different types of self-ligating brackets and conventional brackets [34][35][36][37][38].…”

Section: Incisor Position Modification With Torque Controlmentioning

confidence: 90%