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
  • [41] Periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets
    Pandis, N.
    Vlachopoulos, K.
    Polychronopoulou, A.
    Madianos, P.
    Eliades, T.
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2008, 11 (04) : 211 - 215
  • [42] An in vitro study into the efficacy of complex tooth alignment with conventional and self-ligating brackets
    Montasser, M. A.
    Keilig, L.
    Bourauel, C.
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2015, 18 (01) : 33 - 42
  • [43] Forces exerted by conventional and self-ligating brackets during simulated first- and second-order corrections
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    Eliades, Theodore
    Partowi, Samira
    Bourauel, Christoph
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2008, 133 (05) : 738 - 742
  • [44] Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets
    Aras, Isil
    Unal, Idil
    Huniler, Gencer
    Aras, Aynur
    JOURNAL OF OROFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS-FORTSCHRITTE DER KIEFERORTHOPADIE, 2018, 79 (03): : 181 - 190
  • [45] External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    Nasika, Maria
    Polychronopoulou, Argy
    Eliades, Theodore
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2008, 134 (05) : 646 - 651
  • [46] Comparison of Root Resorption Between Self-Ligating and Conventional Brackets After a 4 Month of Orthodontic Treatment
    Celikoglu, Mevlut
    Nur, Metin
    Bayram, Mehmet
    Unal, Tuba
    TURKISH JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2012, 25 (03) : 206 - 213
  • [47] An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients
    Atik, Ezgi
    Ciger, Semra
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2014, 84 (04) : 615 - 622
  • [48] Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets
    Machibya, Ferdinand M.
    Bao, Xingfu
    Zhao, Lihua
    Hu, Min
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2013, 83 (02) : 280 - 285
  • [49] THE INFLUENCE OF THE SPEED BRACKETS SELF-LIGATING DESIGN ON FORCE LEVELS IN TOOTH MOVEMENT - A COMPARATIVE INVITRO STUDY
    BERGER, JL
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 1990, 97 (03) : 219 - 228
  • [50] Effects of third-order torque on frictional force of self-ligating brackets
    Muguruma, Takeshi
    Iijima, Masahiro
    Brantley, William A.
    Ahluwalia, Karamdeep S.
    Kohda, Naohisa
    Mizoguchi, Itaru
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2014, 84 (06) : 1054 - 1061