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
  • [21] In vitro oxidative stress induced by conventional and self-ligating brackets
    Buljan, Zorana Ivankovic
    Ribaric, Sonja Pezelj
    Abram, Maja
    Ivankovic, Ante
    Spalj, Stjepan
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2012, 82 (02) : 340 - 345
  • [22] Leveling effects of conventional and self-ligating brackets - cases report
    Kao, Chia-Tze
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, 2007, 2 (02) : 110 - 126
  • [23] Comparison of force loss due to friction of different wire sizes and materials in conventional and new self-ligating orthodontic brackets during simulated canine retraction
    El-Bialy, Tarek
    Alobeid, Ahmad
    Dirk, Cornelius
    Jaeger, Andreas
    Keilig, Ludger
    Bourauel, Christoph
    JOURNAL OF OROFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS-FORTSCHRITTE DER KIEFERORTHOPADIE, 2019, 80 (02): : 68 - 78
  • [24] Torque expression of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets
    Morina, Enver
    Eliades, Theodore
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    Jaeger, Andreas
    Bourauel, Christoph
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2008, 30 (03) : 233 - 238
  • [25] Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model
    Tecco, S
    Festa, F
    Caputi, S
    Traini, T
    Di Iorio, D
    D'Attilio, M
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2005, 75 (06) : 1041 - 1045
  • [26] Friction behavior of self-ligating and conventional brackets with different ligature systems
    Szczupakowski, Alexandra
    Reimann, Susanne
    Dirk, Cornelius
    Keilig, Ludger
    Weber, Anna
    Jager, Andreas
    Bourauel, Christoph
    JOURNAL OF OROFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS-FORTSCHRITTE DER KIEFERORTHOPADIE, 2016, 77 (04): : 287 - 295
  • [27] The Leveling Effectiveness of Self-ligating and Conventional Brackets for Complex Tooth Malalignments
    Fansa, Magali
    Keilig, Ludger
    Reimann, Susanne
    Jaeger, Andreas
    Bourauel, Christoph
    JOURNAL OF OROFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS-FORTSCHRITTE DER KIEFERORTHOPADIE, 2009, 70 (04): : 285 - 296
  • [28] Labio-lingual root control of lower anterior teeth and canines obtained by active and passive self-ligating brackets
    Cattaneo, Paolo M.
    Salih, Raaid A.
    Melsen, Birte
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2013, 83 (04) : 691 - 697
  • [29] Three-dimensional deformation comparison of self-ligating brackets
    Melenka, Garrett W.
    Nobes, David S.
    Carey, Jason P.
    Major, Paul W.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2013, 143 (05) : 645 - 657
  • [30] Microbial colonisation associated with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a systematic review
    Parmar, Nidhi P.
    Thompson, Gabrielle L.
    Atack, Nikki E.
    Ireland, Anthony J.
    Sherriff, Martyn
    Haworth, Jennifer A.
    JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2022, 49 (02) : 151 - 162