Soft tissue profile changes of patients treated with two different passive self ligating systems

Anjali Anna Thomas; Harish Babu

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS8.11570

Authors

Anjali Anna Thomas
dranjali85400@gmail.com
Post Graduate, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute Of Medical And Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, 162, Poonamallee high road, Chennai – 600077
Harish Babu Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute Of Medical And Technical Sciences, Chennai – 600077

Keywords:

passive self ligating brackets, Damon Q bracket, AO bracket, soft tissue profile, lateral cephalogram

Abstract

Introduction: Orthodontists have been quite concerned about how orthodontic therapy, whether it involves tooth extraction or not, may affect the facial profile. The aim of the study was to compare the soft tissue profile alterations in patients with Class I malocclusions who underwent non extraction treatment protocol with AO and Damon passive self ligating bracket systems. Materials and methodology: Patients treated with passive self ligating brackets either Damon Q or AO were included in the study. This in vivo study consisted of 2 groups; each group had 10 subjects. Group 1: Damon passive self-ligating bracket, Group 2: AO passive self-ligating bracket. Data was compiled from lateral cephalometric radiographs taken before and after orthodontic treatment. Five linear and five angular soft tissue parameters were used in the study. An independent t test was performed to determine the mean difference between linear and angular soft tissue parameters in the AO and Damon passive self ligating groups. Results: The results of the independent t test showed that there was no statistical significant difference in any of the linear or angular parameters between the two groups(p<0.05).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Hershey HG, Garland Hershey H. Incisor tooth retraction and subsequent profile change in postadolescent female patients [Internet]. Vol. 61, American Journal of Orthodontics. 1972. p. 45–54. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(72)90175-3

Yogosawa F. Predicting soft tissue profile changes concurrent with orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 1990 Autumn;60(3):199–206.

James RD. A comparative study of facial profiles in extraction and nonextraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Sep;114(3):265–76.

Allgayer S, de Lima EMS, Mezomo MB. Influence of premolar extractions on the facial profile evaluated by the Holdaway analysis [Internet]. Vol. 26, Revista Odonto Ciência (Online). 2011. p. 22–9. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/s1980-65232011000100007

Peck S, Peck L, Kataja M. Skeletal asymmetry in esthetically pleasing faces. Angle Orthod. 1991 Spring;61(1):43–8.

Rinchuse DJ, Busch LS, DiBagno D, Cozzani M. Extraction treatment, part 1: the extraction vs. nonextraction debate. J Clin Orthod. 2014 Dec;48(12):753–60.

Ricketts RM. Esthetics, environment, and the law of lip relation. Am J Orthod. 1968 Apr;54(4):272–89.

Burstone CJ. Lip posture and its significance in treatment planning. Am J Orthod. 1967 Apr;53(4):262–84.

Boley JC, Pontier JP, Smith S, Fulbright M. Facial changes in extraction and nonextraction patients. Angle Orthod. 1998 Dec;68(6):539–46.

Saelens NA, De Smit AA. Therapeutic changes in extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 1998 Jun;20(3):225–36.

Holdaway RA. A soft-tissue cephalometric analysis and its use in orthodontic treatment planning. Part II. Am J Orthod. 1984 Apr;85(4):279–93.

Anderson JP, Joondeph DR, Turpin DL. A cephalometric study of profile changes in orthodontically treated cases ten years out of retention. Angle Orthod. 1973 Jul;43(3):324–36.

Komolpis RP. Cephalometric Comparison Between First Premolar and Seccond Premolar Extraction: A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment ... for the Degree of Master of Science in Orthodontics .. 1998. 200 p.

Phulari B. An Atlas on Cephalometric Landmarks. JP Medical Ltd; 2013. 230 p.

Branoff RS. A roentgenographic cephalometric study of changes in soft tissue profile related to orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1971 Sep;60(3):305–6.

Wisth PJ. Soft Tissue Response to Upper Incisor Retraction in Boys [Internet]. Vol. 1, British Journal of Orthodontics. 1974. p. 199–204. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/bjo.1.5.199

Khan M, Fida M. Soft tissue profile response in extraction versus non-extraction orthodontic treatment. J Coll Physicians Surg Pak. 2010 Jul;20(7):454–9.

Trevisi H, Trevisi Zanelato RC. State-of-the-Art Orthodontics E-Book: Self-Ligating Appliances, Miniscrews and Second Molars Extraction. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2011. 240 p.

Garner LD. Soft-tissue changes concurrent with orthodontic tooth movement. Am J Orthod. 1974 Oct;66(4):367–77.

Southard TE, Marshall SD, Bonner LL. Orthodontics in the Vertical Dimension: A Case-Based Review. John Wiley & Sons; 2015. 544 p.

Fitra, Legowo, D., Utomo, B., Suroto, N. S., Parenrengi, M. A., & Al-Fauzi, A. (2021). Intracranial foreign body granuloma caused by oxidized cellulose polymer and etherified sodium carboxymethyl cellulose: an experimental study with orictolagus cuniculus rabbits. International Journal of Health & Medical Sciences, 4(2), 267-272. https://doi.org/10.31295/ijhms.v4n2.1741

Widana, I.K., Sumetri, N.W., Sutapa, I.K., Suryasa, W. (2021). Anthropometric measures for better cardiovascular and musculoskeletal health. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 29(3), 550–561. https://doi.org/10.1002/cae.22202