The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Assessment of Dental Arch Changes and Buccal Bone Thickness in Patients treated with Self-ligating Brackets

Deolino J Ibiapina, Paula V Oltramari-Navarro, Ricardo L Navarro, Marcio R Almeida, Daniela L Mendonça, Ana CCF Conti

Citation Information : Ibiapina DJ, Oltramari-Navarro PV, Navarro RL, Almeida MR, Mendonça DL, Conti AC. Assessment of Dental Arch Changes and Buccal Bone Thickness in Patients treated with Self-ligating Brackets. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (6):434-439.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1868

Published Online: 01-06-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aims

To evaluate changes in transverse dimensions of upper arch and thickness of the buccal bone plate in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment during the leveling phase.

Materials and methods

Sixteen patients aged between 11 and 30 years, presenting with class I and II malocclusion, with minimum of 2 mm crowding treated without extraction, were divided into two groups: GI (n = 8), self-ligating brackets (Easyclip Aditek), and GII (n = 8), conventional preadjusted brackets (3M Unitek). The intercanines, interpremolar, and intermolar widths were measured in dental casts using a digital caliper, before (T1) and after 6 months of treatment (T2). Measurements of the thickness of the bone plate were performed by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and Dolphin three-dimensional program. Paired and nonpaired t tests were applied to analyze the results in and between the groups for the changes in the transversal arch dimensions and buccal bone thickness.

Results

In all statistical tests, the significance level was set at 5%. A nonsignificant increase in transverse dimensions and a slight reduction on thickness of the buccal bone plate were observed in both groups.

Conclusion

The dimensional changes of transverse and thickness of the bone plate during the initial phase of treatment were similar, regardless of the bracket design.

Clinical significance

It should be noted that the bracket design does not influence the treatment course regarding transversal dimensions and buccal bone thickness.

How to cite this article

Ibiapina DJ, Oltramari-Navarro PV, Navarro RL, Almeida MR, Mendonça DL, Conti ACCF. Assessment of Dental Arch Changes and Buccal Bone Thickness in Patients treated with Self-ligating Brackets. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(6):434-439.


PDF Share
  1. Comparison of frictional forces during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of self-ligating brackets and arch wires with a custom-design typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 Feb;133(2):187. e15-187.e24.
  2. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 2003 Sep;30(3):262-273.
  3. The infl uence of the speed brackets self-ligating design on force levels in tooth movement: a comparative in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990 Mar;97(3):219-228.
  4. Time savings with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 1990 Jan;24(1):29-31.
  5. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001 Nov;4(4):228-234.
  6. Time effi - ciency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems. Prog Orthod 2008;9(2):74-80.
  7. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998 Aug;1(1):52-61.
  8. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2010 Jun;32(3):248-253.
  9. Alignment efficiency of Damon 3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 Oct;134(4):470.e1-470.e8.
  10. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009 Sep;136(3):340-347.
  11. Avaliação periodontal dos incisivos inferiores em pacientes tratados ortodonticamente com extrações de quatro pré-molares. Rev Fac Odontol Bauru 2002;10(4):245-251.
  12. Tomografi a computadorizada de feixe cônico (Cone beam): entendendo esse novo método de diagnóstico por imagem com promissora aplicabilidade na Ortodontia. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2007 Mar/Apr; 12 (2): 139-156.
  13. Accuracy of measurements of mandibular anatomy in cone beam computed tomography images. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2007 Apr;103(4):534-542.
  14. Some periodontal tissue reactions to orthodontic tooth movement in monkeys. J Clin Periodontal 1987 Mar;14(3):121-129.
  15. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983 May;83(5):383-390.
  16. Avaliação das Alterações Dimensionais dos arcos dentários inferiores produzidas por braquetes autoligáveis e convencionais. Rev Clín Ortodontia Dental Press 2011;10:92-99.
  17. Maxillary arch width changes during orthodontic treatment with fixed selfligating and traditional straight-wire appliances. World J Orthod 2009 Winter;10(4):290-294.
  18. Transversal maxillary dentoalveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self-ligating brackets: a randomized clinical trial using CBCT – scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011 Nov;14(4):222-233.
  19. The effects of orthodontic therapy on periodontal health: a systematic review of controlled evidence. J Am Dent Assoc 2008 Apr;139(4):413-422.
  20. Transverse, vertical, and anteroposterior changes from bone-anchored maxillary expansion vs traditional maxillary rapid expansion: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Mar;137(3):304.e1-304.e12.
  21. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod 1998 Nov;32(11):670-680.
  22. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Jun;137(6):726. e1-726.e18.
  23. A comparison of resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets under an increasing applied moment. Angle Orthod 2011 Sep;81(5):794-799.
  24. Comparison of maxillary arch dimensional changes with passive and active self-ligation and conventional brackets in the permanent dentition: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013 Aug;144(2):185-193.
  25. Dentoalveolar mandibular changes selfligating versus conventional bracket systems: a CBCT and dental cast study. Dental Press J Orthod 2015 May-Jun;20(3):50-57.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.