A comparative study on conventional ligation and self ligation bracket systems: An original research

B. Rama Mohan Reddy; Moode Kaladhar Naik; Ramya Alla; Sindhu Chandrika; Sahithi Samineni; Pradeep Kandikatla

doi:10.53730/ijhs.v6nS8.9670

Authors

B. Rama Mohan Reddy Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Government Dental College and Hospital, ESI road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
Moode Kaladhar Naik Associate Professor Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Government Dental College and Hospital, ESI road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
Ramya Alla Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Government Dental College and Hospital, ESI road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
Sindhu Chandrika
sindhuchandrika2016@gmail.com
Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Government Dental College and Hospital, ESI road, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh
Sahithi Samineni Consultant orthodontist, Partha Dental Clinic, Banglore, Karnataka
Pradeep Kandikatla Reader, Dept. of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, AP

Keywords:

orthodontic brackets, self adjusting brackets, fixed appliances

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the comparison between conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket system. Methodology: Seven hundred and sixty two patients, consecutively treated with fixed appliances, were evaluated retrospectively. All patients were treated by one orthodontist in a private orthodontic practice. Three hundred and eighty three patients were treated using a conventional pre-adjusted bracket system and 379 patients were treated with active self-ligating brackets. The total treatment time, number of appointments, appointment intervals, number of bracket breakages and number of unscheduled emergency appointments were recorded. Pretreatment characteristics identified by the ICON were related to these variables. Results: The average treatment duration was 15.7 months (Range: 4.1–40.5 months; SD: 5.6 months). Comparable amounts of time were spent in rectangular and round archwires by both appliances. Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the durations of treatment with active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets. The number of debonded brackets and other emergency visits was significantly higher in patients treated with active self-ligating brackets. The treatment characteristics associated with prolonged treatment were: extraction of teeth, a Class II molar relationship and the degree of maxillary crowding or spacing.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 2003;30:262–73.

Berger J, Byloff FK. The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets. J Clin Orthod 2001;35:304–8.

Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency, Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4:220–7.

Eberting JJ, Straja SP, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:228–34.

Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:472–80.

Harradine NW, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109: 319–28.

Harradine N. The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Seminars in Orthod 2008;14:5–18.

Alpern MC. Gaining control with self-ligation. Seminars in Orthod 2008;14:73–86.

Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Self-ligating appliances: evolution or revolution? Aust Orthod J 2008;24:41–9.

Maijer R, Smith DC. Time savings with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 1990;24:29–31.

Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132:208–15.

Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006;76:480–5.

Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005; 21:123–7.

Miles PG. Self-ligating versus conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:223–5.

Haeger RS, Colberg RT. Effects of missed appointments and bracket failures on treatment efficiency and office productivity. J Clin Orthod 2007;41:433–7.

Skidmore KJ, Brook KJ, Thomson WM, Harding WJ. Factors influencing treatment time in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:230–8.

Hanson H. JCO interviews Dr. G, Herbert Hanson on the SPEED bracket. J Clin Orthod 1986;10(3):183-9.

Daniels C, Richmond S. The development of the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). J Orthod 2000; 27:149–62.

Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Failure rate of self-ligating and edgewise brackets bonded with conventional acid etching and a self-etching primer: a prospective in-vivo study. Angle Orthod 2006;76:119–22.

Taylor PJS, Kerr WJS, McColl JH. Factors associated with the standard and duration of orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod 1996; 23:335–41.

Fox NA, Daniels C, Gilgrass T. A comparison of the index of complexity outcome and need (ICON) with the peer assessment rating (PAR) and the index of orthodontic treatment need (IOTN). Br Dent J 2002;193:225–30.

Amir, . F., Suhron, M., & Sulaihah, S. (2021). Family care model development in treating schizophrenia patients that have self-deficit nursing based system: Structural equation modeling analysis. International Journal of Health & Medical Sciences, 5(1), 7-14. https://doi.org/10.21744/ijhms.v5n1.1808

Suryasa, I. W., Rodríguez-Gámez, M., & Koldoris, T. (2021). Health and treatment of diabetes mellitus. International Journal of Health Sciences, 5(1), i-v. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v5n1.2864