Comparison of the force levels among labial and lingual self-ligating and conventional brackets in simulated misaligned teeth

被引:14
|
作者
Alobeid, Ahmad [1 ]
El-Bialy, Tarek [1 ,2 ]
Khawatmi, Said [1 ]
Dirk, Cornelius [1 ]
Jaeger, Andreas [3 ]
Bourauel, Christoph [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Bonn, Sch Dent, Dept Oral Technol, Bonn, Germany
[2] Univ Alberta, Fac Med & Dent, Sch Dent, Div Orthodont, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[3] Univ Bonn, Sch Dent, Orthodont Dept, Bonn, Germany
关键词
TOOTH MOVEMENT; ORTHODONTIC TREATMENT; PERIODONTAL STATUS; MICROBIAL PARAMETERS; MAGNITUDE; APPLIANCES; ALIGNMENT; THERAPY; LESIONS; SYSTEM;
D O I
10.1093/ejo/cjw082
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background/objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate force levels exerted by levelling arch wires with labial and lingual conventional and self-ligating brackets. Materials/methods: The tested orthodontic brackets were of the 0.022-in slot size for labial and 0.018-in for lingual brackets and were as follows: 1. Labial brackets: (i) conventional bracket (GACT-win, Dentsply), (ii) passive self-ligating (SL) brackets (Damon-Q (R), ORMCO; Ortho classic H4 (TM), Orthoclassic; FLI (R) SL, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics) and (iii) active SL brackets (GAC In-Ovation (R) C, DENTSPLY and SPEED (TM), Strite). 2. Lingual brackets: (i) conventional brackets (Incognito, 3M and Joy (TM), Adenta); (ii) passive SL bracket (GAC In-Ovation (R) LM (TM), Dentsply and (iii) active SL bracket (Evolution SLT, Adenta). Thermalloy-NiTi 0.013-in and 0.014-in arch wires (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics) were used with all brackets. The simulated malocclusion represented a maxillary central incisor displaced 2 mm gingivally (x-axis) and 2 mm labially (z-axis). Results: Lingual bracket systems showed higher force levels (2.4 +/- 0.2 to 3.8 +/- 0.2 N) compared to labial bracket systems (from 1.1 +/- 0.1 to 2.2 +/- 0.4 N). However, the differences between SL and conventional bracket systems were minor and not consistent (labial brackets: 1.2 +/- 0.1 N for the GAC Twin and 1.1 +/- 0.1 to 1.6 +/- 0.1 N for the SL brackets with 0.013-in thermalloy; lingual brackets: 2.5 +/- 0.2 to 3.5 +/- 0.1 N for the conventional and 2.7 +/- 0.3 to 3.4 +/- 0.1 N for the SL brackets with 0.013-in Thermalloy). Limitations: This is an in vitro study with different slot sizes in the labial and lingual bracket systems, results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusions/implications: Lingual bracket systems showed higher forces compared to labial bracket systems that might be of clinical concern. We recommend highly flexible nickel titanium arch wires lower than 0.013-in for the initial levelling and alignment especially with lingual appliances.
引用
收藏
页码:419 / 425
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Force levels in complex tooth alignment with conventional and self-ligating brackets
    Montasser, Mona A.
    El-Bialy, Tarek
    Keilig, Ludger
    Reimann, Susanne
    Jaeger, Andreas
    Bourauel, Christoph
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2013, 143 (04) : 507 - 514
  • [2] Microbial complexes levels in conventional and self-ligating brackets
    Ana Zilda Nazar Bergamo
    Paulo Nelson-Filho
    Marcela Cristina Damião Andrucioli
    Cássio do Nascimento
    Vinícius Pedrazzi
    Mírian Aiko Nakane Matsumoto
    Clinical Oral Investigations, 2017, 21 : 1037 - 1046
  • [3] Microbial complexes levels in conventional and self-ligating brackets
    Nazar Bergamo, Ana Zilda
    Nelson-Filho, Paulo
    Damiao Andrucioli, Marcela Cristina
    do Nascimento, Cassio
    Pedrazzi, Vinicius
    Nakane Matsumoto, Mirian Aiko
    CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2017, 21 (04) : 1037 - 1046
  • [4] Self-ligating brackets versus conventional brackets
    Sesso, G.
    Monti, B.
    Salvadori, S.
    Poletti, L.
    Maspero, C.
    Farronato, G.
    DENTAL CADMOS, 2014, 82 (05) : 311 - 318
  • [5] Evidence-based comparison of self-ligating and conventional brackets
    Souper, German Hempel
    Sat Yaber, Maria Ignacia
    Aguilar, Valeria Vargas
    Munoz, Alejandro Diaz
    ODONTOESTOMATOLOGIA, 2021, 23 (38):
  • [6] Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets
    Hamilton, Robert
    Goonewardene, Mithran S.
    Murray, Kevin
    AUSTRALIAN ORTHODONTIC JOURNAL, 2008, 24 (02) : 102 - 109
  • [7] Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    Papaioannou, William
    Kontou, Efterpi
    Nakou, Melachrini
    Makou, Margarita
    Eliades, Theodore
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2010, 32 (01) : 94 - 99
  • [8] Does the Perception of Self-Ligating Brackets Differ from Conventional Brackets Among Orthodontists?
    Aljabaa, Aljazi H.
    Aldosari, Mohammad A.
    Alqahtani, Nasser D.
    Almahdy, Ahmed E.
    Alqahtani, Sadeem S.
    AlSaban, Rana W.
    Aibarakati, Sahar F.
    BIOSCIENCE BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, 2020, 13 (04): : 1805 - 1811
  • [9] Moments Generated during Simulated Rotational Correction with Self-Ligating and Conventional Brackets
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    Eliades, Theodore
    Partowi, Samira
    Bourauel, Christoph
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2008, 78 (06) : 1030 - 1034
  • [10] Bond Strength Comparison of Two Self-Ligating Brackets with A Conventional Bracket
    Basaran, Guvenc
    Ozer, Torun
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2009, 22 (01) : 37 - 44