The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Long-term stability of dentoalveolar, skeletal, and soft tissue changes after non-extraction treatment with a self-ligating system

  • Basciftci, Faruk Ayhan (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University) ;
  • Akin, Mehmet (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University) ;
  • Ileri, Zehra (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University) ;
  • Bayram, Sinem (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University)
  • Received : 2013.09.08
  • Accepted : 2013.10.29
  • Published : 2014.05.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the long-term effects of self-ligating brackets (SLBs) on transverse dimensions of arches and skeletal and soft tissues and to quantitatively evaluate the treatment outcome after non-extraction treatment with SLBs. Methods: The sample consisted of 24 (18 female and six male) subjects, with a mean age of $14.23{\pm}2.19$ years, who received treatment with the Damon$^{(R)}$3 appliances. Complete records including cephalometric radiographs and plaster models were obtained before treatment (T1), immediately after treatment (T2), six months after treatment (T3), and two years (T4) after treatment. Digital study models were generated. Twenty lateral cephalometric, six frontal cephalometric, and eight dental cast measurements were examined. The Peer Assessment Rating index was used to measure the treatment outcome. The Wilcoxon test was applied for statistical analysis of the changes. Results: There were significant increases in all transverse dental cast measurements with active treatment. There was some significant relapse in the long term, particularly in maxillary width (p < 0.05). Statistically significant increases were found in nasal (p < 0.001), maxillary base, upper molar, lower intercanine, and antigonial (p < 0.05) widths in T1-T2. Lower incisors were proclined and protruded in T1-T2. Conclusions: SLBs correct crowding by mechanisms involving incisor proclination and protrusion and expansion of the dental arches, without induction of clinically significant changes in hard and soft tissues of the face.

Keywords

References

  1. Weinberg M, Sadowsky C. Resolution of mandibular arch crowding in growing patients with Class I malocclusions treated nonextraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:359-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(96)70035-5
  2. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:340-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.030
  3. Burke SP, Silveira AM, Goldsmith LJ, Yancey JM, Van Stewart A, Scarfe WC. A meta-analysis of mandibular intercanine width in treatment and postretention. Angle Orthod 1998;68:53-60.
  4. Mills JR. The long-term results of the proclination of lower incisors. Br Dent J 1966;120:355-63.
  5. Little RM. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment: University of Washington studies. Semin Orthod 1999;5:191-204. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(99)80010-3
  6. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 2003;30:262-73. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/30.3.262
  7. 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. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40407.x
  8. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:220-7.
  9. Kim H, Kim KY, Kang YG, Kim SH, Kook YA. Clinical considerations with self-ligating brackets. Korean J Orthod 2006;36:474-82.
  10. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:248-53. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp123
  11. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998;1:52-61.
  12. Damon DH. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:670-80.
  13. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e99-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.019
  14. Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cevidanes LH, et al. Transversal maxillary dento-alveolar 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;14:222-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01527.x
  15. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:470.e1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.08.001
  16. Richmond S, Shaw WC, Roberts CT, Andrews M. The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod 1992;14:180-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/14.3.180
  17. Birkeland K, Furevik J, Bøe OE, Wisth PJ. Evaluation of treatment and post-treatment changes by the PAR Index. Eur J Orthod 1997;19:279-88. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/19.3.279
  18. Stalpers MJ, Booij JW, Bronkhorst EM, Kuijpers- Jagtman AM, Katsaros C. Extraction of maxillary first permanent molars in patients with Class II Division 1 malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:316-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.034
  19. Freitas KM, Freitas DS, Valarelli FP, Freitas MR, Janson G. PAR evaluation of treated Class I extraction patients. Angle Orthod 2008;78:270-4. https://doi.org/10.2319/042307-206.1
  20. Tweed CH. The application of the principles of the edgewise arch in the treatment of class II, division 1, malocclusion. Angle Orthod 1936;6:198-208.
  21. Peck S. So what's new? Arch expansion, again. Angle Orthod 2008;78:574-5. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219-78.3.574
  22. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Selfligating 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;132:208-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.030
  23. Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Al Yami EA, van't Hof MA. Long-term stability of orthodontic treatment. Ned Tijdschr Tandheelkd 2000;107:178-81.
  24. Tecco S, Tetè S, Perillo L, Chimenti C, Festa F. Maxillary arch width changes during orthodontic treatment with fixed self-ligating and traditional straight-wire appliances. World J Orthod 2009;10:290-4.
  25. Yu YL, Tang GH, Gong FF, Chen LL, Qian YF. A comparison of rapid palatal expansion and Damon appliance on non-extraction correction of dental crowding. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2008;17:237-42.
  26. DiBiase AT, Nasr IH, Scott P, Cobourne MT. Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e111-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.07.020
  27. Machibya FM, Bao X, Zhao L, Hu M. Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod 2013;83:280-5. https://doi.org/10.2319/041912-326.1
  28. Poulton D, Vlaskalic V, Baumrind S. Treatment outcomes in 4 modes of orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:351-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.04.022
  29. Ileri Z, Basciftci FA, Malkoc S, Ramoglu SI. Comparison of the outcomes of the lower incisor extraction, premolar extraction and non-extraction treatments. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:681-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr064
  30. Hess DR. Retrospective studies and chart reviews. Respir Care 2004;49:1171-4.

Cited by

  1. Premaxillary Distraction Osteogenesis Using an Intraoral Appliance for Unilateral Cleft Lip and Palate: Case Report vol.52, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1597/14-105
  2. Cone Beam Computed Tomography-based Evaluation of the Anterior Teeth Position Changes obtained by Passive Self-ligating Brackets vol.17, pp.8, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1901
  3. Three-dimensional digital cast analysis of the effects produced by a passive self-ligating system vol.38, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv089
  4. Maxillary expansion in an animal model with light, continuous force vol.88, pp.3, 2014, https://doi.org/10.2319/070717-451.1
  5. Quantitative measures of gingival recession and the influence of gender, race, and attrition vol.19, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0199-4
  6. Comparison of wala ridge and dental arch dimensions changes after orthodontic treatment using a passive self-ligating system or conventional fixed appliance vol.30, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_361_18
  7. Effect of Conventional Versus Passive Self-Ligating Vestibular Appliances on Torque, Tip and Transverse Dental Changes in Patients Affected by Class I Malocclusion: A Retrospective Study vol.21, pp.suppl1, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1590/pboci.2021.106
  8. Cephalometric predictors for optimal soft tissue profile outcome in adult Asian class I subjects treated via extraction and non-extraction. A retrospective study vol.19, pp.4, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.08.002