The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2016 ) > List of Articles


Cone Beam Computed Tomography-based Evaluation of the Anterior Teeth Position Changes obtained by Passive Self-ligating Brackets

Ana CCF Conti, Fernando K Rhoden, Liliana Á Maltagliati, Renata R Almeida-Pedrin, Leopoldino C Filho, Maurício de Almeida Cardoso

Citation Information : Conti AC, Rhoden FK, Maltagliati LÁ, Almeida-Pedrin RR, Filho LC, de Almeida Cardoso M. Cone Beam Computed Tomography-based Evaluation of the Anterior Teeth Position Changes obtained by Passive Self-ligating Brackets. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (8):623-629.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1901

Published Online: 01-12-2016

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



The objective of this study was to evaluate the anterior teeth position changes obtained by passive self-ligating brackets using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods

Twenty patients with a mean age of 16.5 years, class I malocclusion, constricted maxillary arch, and teeth crowding above 5 mm were enrolled in this study, and treated by passive orthodontic self-ligating brackets. A sequence of stainless steel thermoset wire was implemented with ending wire of 0.019” × 0.025”. The CBCT and dental casts were obtained prior to the installation of orthodontic appliances (T1), and 30 days after rectangular steel wire 0.019” × 0.025” installation (T2). The measurements in CBCT were performed with the Anatomage software, and the dental casts were evaluated with a digital caliper rule with an accuracy of 0.01 mm.


The CBCT data demonstrated mean buccal inclination of the upper and lower central incisors ranging from 6.55° to 7.24° respectively. The upper and lower lateral incisors ranged from 4.90° to 8.72° respectively. The lower canines showed an average increase of 3.88° in the buccal inclination and 1.96 mm in the transverse intercuspal distance. The upper canines showed a negative inclination with mean average of −0.36°, and an average increase of 0.82 mm in the transverse distance, with negative correlation with the initial crowding.


Treatment with passive self-ligating brackets without obtaining spaces increases buccal inclination of the upper and lower incisors with no correlation with the amount of initial teeth crowding. The intercanine distance tends to a small increase showing different inclinations between the arches.

Clinical significance

When taking into account the selfligating brackets, the amount of initial dental crowding is not a limitation factor that could increase the buccal inclination of the anterior teeth.

How to cite this article

Rhoden FK, Maltagliati LÁ, de Castro Ferreira Conti AC, Almeida-Pedrin RR, Filho LC, de Almeida Cardoso M. Cone Beam Computed Tomography-based Evaluation of the Anterior Teeth Position Changes obtained by Passive Selfligating Brackets. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(8):623-629.

PDF Share
  1. An assessment of conventional and selfligating brackets in class I maxillary constriction patients. Angle Orthod 2014 Jul;84(4):615-622.
  2. Labiolingual root control of lower anterior teeth and canines obtained by active and passive self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod 2013 Jul;83(4):691-697.
  3. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a prospective clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2006 Nov;9(4):193-198.
  4. Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system. Angle Orthod 2011 Jul;81(4):647-652.
  5. Transversal changes in dental arches from non-extraction treatment with self ligating brackets. Dental Press J Orthod 2013 May-Jun;18(3):39-45.
  6. Long-term stability of dentoalveolar, skeletal, and soft tissue changes after non-extraction treatment with a selfligating system. Korean J Orthod 2014 May;44(3):119-127.
  7. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Jun;137(6):726.e1-726.e18; discussion 726-727.
  8. Comparison of root resorption between selfligating and conventional preadjusted brackets using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2012 Nov;82(6):1078-1082.
  9. Randomized controlled clinical trial of oral health-related quality of life in patients wearing conventional and self-ligating brackets. Korean J Orthod 2014 Jul;44(4):168-176.
  10. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004 Jun;26(3):327-332.
  11. In vitro evaluation of resistance to sliding in self-ligating and conventional bracket systems during dental alignment. Korean J Orthod 2012 Aug;42(4):218-224.
  12. A comparative study of frictional force in self-ligating brackets according to the bracket-archwire angulation, bracket material, and wire type. Korean J Orthod 2015 Jan;45(1):13-19.
  13. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010 May;80(3):575-584.
  14. 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 Aug;132(2):208-215.
  15. 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.
  16. Dentoalveolar mandibular changes with selfligating versus conventional bracket systems: a CBCT and dental cast study. Dental Press J Orthod 2015 May-Jun;20(3):50-57.
  17. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998 Aug;1(1):52-61.
  18. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009 May;135(5):597-602.
  19. Computed tomography evaluation of mandibular incisor bony support in untreated patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Aug;138(2):179-187.
  20. Mesiodistal root angulation using panoramic and cone beam CT. Angle Orthod 2007 Mar;77(2):206-213.
  21. The reliability of head film measurements. 3. Tracing superimposition. Am J Orthod 1976 Dec;70(6):617-644.
  22. Impact of orthodontic decompensation on bone insertion. Case Rep Dent 2014;2014:341752.
  23. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod 1975 Nov;68(5):554-563.
  24. Mandibular dental arch form and dimension. Treatment and postretention changes. Am J Orthod 1974 Jul;66(1):58-70.
  25. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983 May;83(5):382-390.
  26. Clinical applications of cone beam computed tomography in dental practice. J Can Dent Assoc 2006 Feb;72(1):75-80.
  27. Dosimetry of a cone beam computed tomography machine compared with a digital X-ray machine in orthodontic imaging. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012 Apr;141(4):436-443.
  28. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006 Jul;35(4):219-226.
  29. Comparative dosimetry of dental CBCT devices and 64-slice CT for oral and maxillofacial radiology. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008 Jul;106(1):106-114.
  30. The current status of cone beam computed tomography imaging in orthodontics. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2011 Jan;40(1):24-34.
  31. Thyroid shields for radiation dose reduction during cone beam computed tomography scanning for different oral and maxillofacial regions. Eur J Radiol 2012 Mar;81(3):e376-e380.
  32. Active or passive self-ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparative efficiency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Jan;137(1):12.e1-12.e6; discussion 12-13.
  33. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straightwire system. J Clin Orthod 1998 Nov;32(11):670-680.
  34. A meta-analysis of mandibular intercanine width in treatment and postretention. Angle Orthod 1998 Feb;68(1):53-60.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.