Clinical Evaluation of Self Ligating Versus Conventional Ligating Preadjusted Edgewise Brackets- A Prospective Clinical Study


Clinical Evaluation of Self Ligating Versus Conventional Ligating Preadjusted Edgewise Brackets- A Prospective Clinical Study


Thapa A1, Datana S2, Agarwal SS3, Jayan B4, Chopra SS5, Bhandari SK6

1Lucknow (India); 2 Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics,Armed Forces Medical College, Pune (India); 3Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics,Armed Forces Medical College, Pune (India); 4 Bangalore (India); 5 Professor, Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune (India); 6 Professor, Department of Oral and Maxilofacial Surgery, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune (India)


American Journal of Geographical Research and Reviews

Objective: The prospective study was taken up with null hypothesis that there is no difference clinically in treatment efficiency and gingival condition before start of treatment & twelve months after bonding in SLB and CLB system. Materials and Methods: This clinical study include 30 patients, divided into two groups of 15 each were included in the present study. Intraoral photos and study models taken at pre-treatment (T0), 5 weeks (T1), 10 weeks (T2) and 15 weeks (T3). Initial alignment was assessed by using the Little irregularity index (LII) in the mandibular anterior teeth. The subjects were also examined for bleeding potential of the tissues by using Gingival Index (GI). Results: The mean initial irregularity (MII) score for SLB T0, T5, T10 and T15 was 5.867, 2.252, 0.516 and 0.039. MII score for CLB T0, T5, T10 and T15 was 6.000, 3.630, 1.589 and 0.327. A two sample t-test revealed gap of 4.02% was statistically significant (T= 2.80, 0.012). This data suggests that total alignment change of mandibular arch from T 0 to T 15 was better in SLB compared to CLB group. The mean increase of GI with SLB system was 0.183 while for CLB were equal to 0.98. This difference of GI between SLB and CLB before and after twelve months of bonding was statistically significant (T= -2.96, P value=0.010). Conclusion: The present study could facilitate the orthodontist to compare the potential benefits of SLB over the CLB system that facilitate less gingival bleeding and increase in alignment efficiency.


Keywords: Clinical Evaluation, Self Ligating Versus Conventional Ligating Preadjusted Edgewise Brackets

Free Full-text PDF


How to cite this article:
Thapa A, Datana S, Agarwal SS, Jayan B, Chopra SS, Bhandari SK. Clinical Evaluation of Self Ligating Versus Conventional Ligating Preadjusted Edgewise Brackets- A Prospective Clinical Study. International Journal of Dental Research and Reviews, 2019, 2:17


References:
1. Sandy JR, Farndale RW, Meikle MC. Recent advances in understanding mechanically induced bone remodelling and their relevance to orthodontic theory and practice. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1993;103:212-22.
2. Stolenzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. Int J Orthod Dent Children 1935;21:837-40.
3. Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;106:472-80.
4. Sims APT, Waters NE, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating and pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J orthod 1993;15:377-85.
5. Harridine NWT, Brine DJ. The clinical use of activa self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod 1996:109:319-28.
6. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution, and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998;1:52-61.
7. Berger JK. Self-ligation in the year 2000. J Clin Orthod 2000;34:74-8.
8. Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typhodonts. Angle Orthod 2004;74:202-11.
9. Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T, Mcleod J, Maier T, Machid CA. Plaque retention by self-ligating vs elastomeric orthodontic brackets: Qualitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod dentofac Orthop 2009;135:426.e1-426.e9.
10. Maizer R, Smith DC. Time savings with self-ligating brackets. Clin Orthod 1990; 24:29-31.
11. Loftus BP, Artun J, Nicholl JI, Alonzo TA, Stoner JA. Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999;116:336-45.
12. Stolzenberg J. The efficiency of the Russell attachment. J Orthod Oral Surg 1946; 32: 572-82.
13. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1975; 68:554-63.
14. Pandis N, Papaioannou W, Kontou E, Nakou M, Makou M, Eliades T. Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32:94–99.
15. Loe H. The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Periodontal 38 (Suppl):1967; 610-616.
16. Harradine NWT, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets. Am Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 109:319-28.
17. Cobb NW 3rd, Kula KS, Phillips C, Proffit WR. Efficiency of multi-strand steel, superelastic Ni-Ti and ion-implanted Ni-Ti archwires for initial alignment. Clin Orthod Res 1998; 1:12-9.
18. Tidy DC. Frictional forces in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989; 96:249-54.
19. Taylor NG, Ison K. Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwires in the buccal segments. Angle Orthod 1996; 66:215-22.
20. Michelberger DJ, Eadie RL, Faulkner MG, Glover KE, Prasad NG, Major PW. The friction and wear patterns of orthodontic brackets and archwires in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000; 118:662-74.
21. Zachrisson BU. Cause and prevention of injuries to teeth and supporting structures during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1976; 69:285-300.
22. Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007; 131:395–9.
23. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4:228-34.
24. Sukontapatipark W, El-Agroudi MA, Selliseth NJ, Thunold K, Selvig KA. Bacterial colonization associated with fixed orthodontic appliances. A scanning electron microscopy study. Eur J Orthod 2001; 23: 475–84.
25. 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.
26. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4:220-7.
27. Kim TK, Kim KD, Baek SH. Comparison of frictional forces during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of self-ligating brackets and arch wires with a custom-designed typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008; 133, 187.e15-24.
28. Bloom RH, Brown LR. A study of the effects of orthodontic appliances on the oral microbial flora. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1964; 17:658-67.
29. Liu H, Sun J, Dong Y, Lu H, Zhou H, Hansen BF, et al. Periodontal health and relative quantity of subgingival Porphyromonas gingivalis during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2011; 81:609-15.
30. Souza RA, Magnani MBBA, Nouer DF, Silva CO, Klein MI, Sallum EA, et al. Periodontal and microbiologic evaluation of 2 methods of archwire ligation: ligature wires and elastomeric rings. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008; 134:506-12.
31. Turkkahraman H, Sayin MO, Bozkurt FY, Yetkin Z, Kaya S, Onal S. Archwire ligation techniques, microbial colonization, and periodontal status in orthodontically treated patients. Angle Orthod 2005; 75:231-6.