-
The Angle Orthodontist May 2010To evaluate the clinical differences in relation to the use of self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical differences in relation to the use of self-ligating brackets in orthodontics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic databases were searched; no restrictions relating to publication status or language of publication were applied. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) investigating the influence of bracket type on alignment efficiency, subjective pain experience, bond failure rate, arch dimensional changes, rate of orthodontic space closure, periodontal outcomes, and root resorption were selected. Both authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment, and data extraction. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
RESULTS
Six RCTs and 11 CCTs were identified. Meta-analysis of the influence of bracket type on subjective pain experience failed to demonstrate a significant advantage for either type of appliance. Statistical analysis of other outcomes was unfeasible because of inadequate methodological design and heterogenous designs.
CONCLUSIONS
At this stage there is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the use of self-ligating fixed orthodontic appliances over conventional appliance systems or vice versa.
Topics: Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20050755
DOI: 10.2319/081009-454.1 -
The Angle Orthodontist Jan 2010To evaluate the quantitative effects on torque expression of varying the slot size of stainless steel orthodontic brackets and the dimension of stainless steel wire, and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the quantitative effects on torque expression of varying the slot size of stainless steel orthodontic brackets and the dimension of stainless steel wire, and to analyze the limitations of the experimental methods used.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In vitro studies measuring torque expression in conventional and self-ligating stainless steel brackets with a torque-measuring device, with the use of straight stainless steel orthodontic wire without second-order mechanics and without loops, coils, or auxiliary wires, were sought through a systematic review process.
RESULTS
Eleven articles were selected. Direct comparison of different studies was limited by differences in the measuring devices used and in the parameters measured. On the basis of the selected studies, in a 0.018 inch stainless steel bracket slot, the engagement angle ranges from 31 degrees with a 0.016 x 0.016 inch stainless steel archwire to 4.6 degrees with a 0.018 x 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire. In a 0.022 inch stainless steel bracket slot, the engagement angle ranges from 18 degrees with a 0.018 x 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire to 6 degrees with a 0.021 x 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire. Active stainless steel self-ligating brackets demonstrate an engagement angle of approximately 7.5 degrees, whereas passive stainless steel self-ligating brackets show an engagement angle of approximately 14 degrees with 0.019 x 0.025 inch stainless steel wire in a 0.022 inch slot.
CONCLUSIONS
The engagement angle depends on archwire dimension and edge shape, as well as on bracket slot dimension, and is variable and larger than published theoretical values. Clinically effective torque can be achieved in a 0.022 inch bracket slot with archwire torsion of 15 to 31 degrees for active self-ligating brackets and of 23 to 35 degrees for passive self-ligating brackets with a 0.019 x 0.025 inch stainless steel wire.
Topics: Dental Alloys; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel; Surface Properties; Torque; Torsion, Mechanical
PubMed: 19852662
DOI: 10.2319/080508-352.1 -
The Angle Orthodontist May 2009To compare the amount of expressed frictional resistance between orthodontic self-ligating brackets and conventionally ligated brackets in vitro as reported in the... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Review
OBJECTIVE
To compare the amount of expressed frictional resistance between orthodontic self-ligating brackets and conventionally ligated brackets in vitro as reported in the literature.
METHODS
Several electronic databases (Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were searched without limits. In vitro studies that addressed friction of self-ligating brackets compared with conventionally ligated brackets were selected and reviewed. In addition, a search was performed by going through the reference lists of the selected articles to identify any paper that could have been missed by the electronic searches.
RESULTS
A total of 70 papers from the electronic database searches and 3 papers from the secondary search were initially obtained. After applying the selection criteria, only 19 papers were included in this review. A wide range of methods were applied.
CONCLUSIONS
Compared with conventional brackets, self-ligating brackets produce lower friction when coupled with small round archwires in the absence of tipping and/or torque in an ideally aligned arch. Sufficient evidence was not found to claim that with large rectangular wires, in the presence of tipping and/or torque and in arches with considerable malocclusion, self-ligating brackets produce lower friction compared with conventional brackets.
Topics: Friction; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Surface Properties; Torque
PubMed: 19413397
DOI: 10.2319/060208-288.1 -
Journal of Orthodontics Mar 2009This review aimed to identify the evidence for the efficacy of archwires used in the alignment stage of orthodontic treatment by undertaking a systematic review of the... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
This review aimed to identify the evidence for the efficacy of archwires used in the alignment stage of orthodontic treatment by undertaking a systematic review of the literature.
DATA SOURCES
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and the meta Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to July 2008. Reference lists of identified articles and relevant review articles were checked for further possible studies.
REVIEW METHODS
Controlled clinical trials and randomised clinical trials that compared aligning archwires and reported objective measures of alignment were selected for inclusion. Validity and quality assessment were undertaken to identify studies with a low risk of bias. Details of the study methodology and the reported results were then abstracted.
RESULTS
100 studies were identified by the searches and 7 of these were identified as meeting the selection criteria. Four studies were deemed, after quality assessment, to have a low risk of bias and data was extracted from these. No two studies shared a common methodology or common reporting of outcome. Meta-analysis was therefore not possible.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient data in these studies to make clear recommendations regarding the most effective archwire for alignment. Recommendations on future study design have been made.
Topics: Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Orthodontic Wires; Orthodontics, Corrective
PubMed: 19286875
DOI: 10.1179/14653120722914 -
The Angle Orthodontist Jan 2009To evaluate the effectiveness of adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic databases, conference proceedings and the Internet were searched. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment, and data extraction. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Comparisons were made between the main types of adhesive.
RESULTS
Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified, all of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light-cured compomer; and one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass polyphosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies. Meta-analysis was not feasible.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient high-quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.
Topics: Compomers; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives; Molar; Organophosphates; Orthodontic Wires; Self-Curing of Dental Resins; Zinc Phosphate Cement
PubMed: 19123702
DOI: 10.2319/081307-377.1 -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research May 2008To review recent literature to determine strength of clinical evidence concerning the influence of various factors on the efficiency (rate of tooth movement) of closing... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To review recent literature to determine strength of clinical evidence concerning the influence of various factors on the efficiency (rate of tooth movement) of closing extraction spaces using sliding mechanics.
DESIGN
A comprehensive systematic review on prospective clinical trials. An electronic search (1966-2006) of several databases limiting the searches to English and using several keywords was performed. Also a hand search of five key journals specifically searching for prospective clinical trials relevant to orthodontic space closure using sliding mechanics was completed. Outcome Measure - Rate of tooth movement.
RESULTS
Ten prospective clinical trials comparing rates of closure under different variables and focusing only on sliding mechanics were selected for review. Of these ten trials on rate of closure, two compared arch wire variables, seven compared material variables used to apply force, and one examined bracket variables. Other articles which were not prospective clinical trials on sliding mechanics, but containing relevant information were examined and included as background information. CONCLUSION - The results of clinical research support laboratory results that nickel-titanium coil springs produce a more consistent force and a faster rate of closure when compared with active ligatures as a method of force delivery to close extraction space along a continuous arch wire; however, elastomeric chain produces similar rates of closure when compared with nickel-titanium springs. Clinical and laboratory research suggest little advantage of 200 g nickel-titanium springs over 150 g springs. More clinical research is needed in this area.
Topics: Biomechanical Phenomena; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Space Closure; Orthodontic Wires; Prospective Studies; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 18416747
DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2008.00421.x