The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

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

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Retrospective Analysis of Different Bracket Systems used in the Treatment of Patients with Anterior Crowding: A Longitudinal Comparative Study

Santosh Kumar Subudhi, Shipra Sepolia, Atul PS Kushwah, Amanpreet Singh Natt, Lipika Vashisht, Sushil Kumar Sahoo

Citation Information : Subudhi SK, Sepolia S, Kushwah AP, Natt AS, Vashisht L, Sahoo SK. Retrospective Analysis of Different Bracket Systems used in the Treatment of Patients with Anterior Crowding: A Longitudinal Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (8):687-691.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1913

Published Online: 01-08-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

New design of brackets have been introduced in the field of orthodontics in the recent past, and one of such advancement is the self-ligating brackets. These brackets are said to have less friction, with a shorter period of treatment. Better patient acceptance and good treatment results are some of the other advantages offered by self-ligating brackets. Hence, we comparatively evaluated root resorption of anterior teeth by self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets in cases of severe anterior crowding in class I patients.

Materials and methods

The present study was carried out at the department of orthodontics in a dental institution and included 140 patients that presented with the chief complaint of Angle class I malocclusion with crowding of more than 6 mm in the anterior tooth region. Two groups were formed with 70 patients in each group. In one group self-ligating brackets were used, while in other group conventional brackets were used. Malmgren's method was sued for evaluating the root resorption score ranging from 0 to 4. All the results were analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software. Chi-square test, nonpaired t-test, and paired t-test were used to evaluate the level of significance.

Results

The mean age of the patients in groups I and II was 13.92 and 13.81 years respectively. While comparing age of the patients and time duration of the treatment, no significant results were obtained. While comparing the root resorptions at various time intervals in groups I and II patients, significant results were obtained. While comparing the root resorptions in between groups I and II patients, no statistically significant results were obtained (p-value > 0.05).

Conclusion

Statistically similar amount of resorption is seen in patients in both the groups either on self-ligating brackets or on conventional preadjusted brackets during treatment of Angle class I patients with severe anterior crowding.

Clinical significance

In treating anterior crowding patients with Angle class I patients, choice of brackets has no effect on the amount of root resorption.

How to cite this article

Sepolia S, Kushwah APS, Natt AS, Vashisht L, Sahoo SK, Subudhi SK. Retrospective Analysis of Different Bracket Systems used in the Treatment of Patients with Anterior Crowding: A Longitudinal Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(8):687-691.


PDF Share
  1. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Jun;137(6):726.e1-726.e18.
  2. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. Int J Orthod Dent Child 1935 Sep;21(9):837-840.
  3. The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets. J Clin Orthod 2001 May;35(5):304-308.
  4. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010 Jun;137(6):738-742.
  5. Patient characteristics and treatment variables associated with apical root resorption during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991 Jan;99(1):35-43.
  6. Root resorption after orthodontic treatment of traumatized teeth. Am J Orthod 1982 Dec;82:487-491.
  7. Self-ligating brackets: Where are we now? J Orthod 2003 Sep;30(3):262-273.
  8. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004 Jun;26(3):327-332.
  9. Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracketarchwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003 Oct;124(4):395-402.
  10. Resistance to sliding with 3 types of elastomeric modules. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005 Jun;127(6):670-675.
  11. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 1998 Oct;20(5):589-596.
  12. The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003 Apr;123(4):416-422.
  13. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998 Jun;20:283-291.
  14. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994 Nov;106(5):472-480.
  15. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J Orthod 1993 Oct;15(5):377-385.
  16. ; Brantley, WA.; Eliades, G. Orthodontic brackets. In:Brantley, WA.; Eliades, T., editors. Orthodontic materials: Scientific and clinical aspects. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001. p. 143-172.
  17. A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with the edgewise and Speed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995 Jul;108(1):76-84.
  18. Apical root resorption 6 months after initiation of fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005 Jul;128(1):57-67.
  19. Root resorption of self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets in severe anterior crowding Class I patients: a longitudinal retrospective study. BMC Oral Health 2015 Oct;15(115):1-6.
  20. 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.e1-8.
  21. External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 Nov;134(5):646-651.
  22. Comparison of root resorption between self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets using cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod 2012 Nov;82(6):1078-1082.
  23. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with self-ligating and conventional edgewise appliances: a dental cast study. Dentistry 2012 Apr;2(3):1-5.
  24. Are self-ligating brackets an advantageous alternative for non-extraction treatments? J Dentofacial Anom Orthod 2014 Jan;17(402):1-11.
  25. External root resorption with the self-ligating Damon system – A retrospective study. Prog Orthod 2016 Dec;17(1):20.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.