Self-ligating brackets do not increase treatment efficiency

Does observational study on the effectiveness of the Twin Blocks overestimate or underestimate the results? A comparative analysis of retrospective samples versus randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Class II malocclusion is one of the most common orthodontic problems. The Twin Block appliance has proven to be the most popular appliance for the correction of these malocclusions. Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the Twin Block appliance have reported the changes to be mainly dentoalveolar, several nonrandomized studies have reported a significant skeletal improvement in these patients. Hence, the aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of Twin Block appliance evaluated using an RCT or retrospectively selected cases (RSC) for the treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusion in an adolescent population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study. The results for an RCT were selected from a UK Class II multicenter study. Sixty-three patients from the trial were included. This group was matched with retrospectively selected Class II cases treated with a Twin Block functional appliance and their results submitted for Membership in Orthodontics examination in the United Kingdom, from four centers. The primary outcome was skeletal measurement ANB (A point, nasion, B point). Secondary outcomes included final peer assessment rating (PAR) scores and final overjet. Intrarater reliability of measurements was assessed. Independent samples t-test was carried out to look at the difference between the groups.

RESULTS

The reliability assessment showed excellent agreement for all measurements. The data were normally distributed. There was a statistically significant difference favoring the RSC group for final overjet (mean difference [MD] = 1.068, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.67 to 1.47, P = 0.000) and final PAR (MD = 4.0, 95% CI -0.79 to 5.5, P = 0.000). There was no significant difference in the scores for final ANB (MD = 0.34, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.07, P = 0.33).

CONCLUSION

The RSCs show significantly improved overjet and PAR scores at the end of treatment and no statistically significant difference for skeletal change. The study raises the question of a potential role of observational studies in evaluating the effect of an intervention in orthodontics.

Comparison of shear bond strength and ARI of four different adhesive systems used to bond molar tubes: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine and compare the shear bond strength and ARI score of one traditional etch-and-rinse adhesive system serving as control, with those of two other all-in-one adhesives but with enamel acid etching preceding their application, and of one new 8th generation all-in-one bonding agent combined with a traditional adhesive used to bond stainless steel buccal tubes to molar teeth.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Four groups of teeth were formulated according to the adhesive system used to bond the tubes on the molars. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine (Hounsfield, UK). After debonding, each enamel surface was imaged using Inspex HD l080p Vesa camera (Ash Technologies Ltd., Ireland) to determine the ARI score.

RESULTS

The mean SBSs in MPa for the four groups were respectively: A: 9.640 (±3.69), B: 10.261 (±3.03), C: 9.689 (±2.48), D: 8.412 (±3.02). No statistically significant differences were neither found through one-way ANOVA to exist between the group means (P: 0.715), nor for the ARI score frequence through Chi² (P: 0.534). Maxcem Elite showed four and G-Premio Bond zero instances of enamel fracture.

CONCLUSIONS

1. SBSs of all adhesives and ARI score distributions did not present any significant differences when used to bond stainless steel molar tubes. 2. All adhesives presented with acceptable shear bond strengths for clinical use. 3. Maxcem Elite under the tested conditions presented the greatest and G-Premio the least number of enamel fractures.

Cytokine profile changes in gingival crevicular fluid after placement different brackets types

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between bracket design and ratio of five proinflammatory cytokine, in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), and bacterial adhesion without tooth movement influence.

DESIGN

The sample was comprised of 20 participants, aged 11 to 15 years old (mean age: 13.3 years±1.03). A conventional Gemini™ metallic bracket and two self-ligating brackets, In-Ovation^®R and SmartClip™, were bonded to the maxillary incisors and canines. GCF was collected using a standard filter paper strip before and 60days after bonding. The cytokine levels (IL-12, IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6 and TNF-α) were performed by the LUMINEX assay. The levels of the red and orange bacterial complexes were analyzed by the Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. The data of cytokine and bacterial complexes were carried out using the non-parametric tests at 5% of significance level.

RESULTS

Increased cytokine levels were observed. However, only the SmartClip™ group showed a significantly increased level of TNF-α (p=0.046). The SmartClip™ brackets group presented higher levels of red complex bacteria.

CONCLUSIONS

The bracket design affected cytokine levels and bacterial adhesion since it was observed that the proinflammatory cytokines released in GCF to the SmartClip™ group showed an increase in the TNF-α levels associated with higher bacterial levels, which possibly represents greater inflammatory potential. Thereby, the bracket design should be considered in patients with risk of periodontal disease and root resorption.

Microbial complexes levels in conventional and self-ligating brackets

OBJECTIVES

The aims were to evaluate the levels of bacterial species in saliva and in situ and to assess whether the design of brackets influences the risk of developing periodontal disease.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients (13.3 mean age) were bonded with self-ligating brackets and a conventional bracket. Saliva was collected before bonding and 30 and 60 days after bonding. One sample of each bracket was removed 30 and 60 days after bonding. The analysis was determined by checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. The data was evaluated by the non-parametric test.

RESULTS

A significant increase in the levels of bacterial species in the saliva occurred in 15 of the 22 analyzed species. The self-ligating brackets presented the highest incidence percentages for the orange and red complexes 60 days after bonding. In situ analyses showed different patterns according to the bracket design. The levels of Campylobacter rectus showed significant differences (p = 0.011) 60 days after bonding among the three brackets; the highest values were observed in the In-Ovation®R bracket.

CONCLUSIONS

The bracket design seems to influence the levels of bacterial species involved in periodontal disease. Considering the wide variety of bacterial species, additional studies are needed to aid in the establishment of effective protocols to prevent the development of periodontal disease during orthodontic treatment.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A dynamic alteration in the oral microbiota may lead to inflammatory reactions in the supporting soft and hard tissues. The different types of brackets interfere with bacterial adherence. Bracket design should be considered in orthodontic treatment.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of self-ligating interactive bracket with conventional preadjusted bracket: A clinical study

Aims and Objectives:

This clinical study was conducted to compare the interactive self-ligating twin brackets and the standard double width brackets for their efficiency in Rate of Retraction.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 20 patients with Angle's class I or class II or class III dento-alveolar malocclusions between the age group of 18-25 years were selected. 10 patients in each group both males and females were randomly selected for the study. Ten patients were bonded using conventional brackets (Group I) the other ten patients were bonded using Interactive self-ligating brackets (Group II). The Rate of retraction was quantified using the scanned models. Pretreatment and post treatment models were taken and scanned to measure the amount of Incisor movement and Anchor loss.

Results:

(1) Interactive Self-ligating brackets showed significant Rate of retraction when compared with conventional brackets on right and left quadrant. (Group I 0.545 ± .205: Group II 0.827 ± .208 P = .013*) (Group I 0.598 ± .160: Group II 0.804 ± .268 P = .071) (2) Interactive self-ligating brackets when compared with conventional brackets had significant amount of incisor movement on right and left quadrant. (Group I 3.51 ± .548: Group II 4.38 ± .1.06 P = .047*) and (Group I 3.66 ± .899: Group II 4.67 ± 1.02 P = .047*) (3) Conventional brackets showed significant Amount of Anchor loss when compared with that of Interactive self-ligating brackets on right and left quadrant. (Group I .948 ± .392: Group II 0.501 ± .229 P = .013*). In the left side (Group I 0.861 ± .464: Group II 0.498 ± .227 P = .060).

Conclusion:

The interactive self-ligating brackets show more efficiency in Rate of Retraction, Amount of Incisor movement and Amount of Anchor loss when compared with the conventional brackets.

From conventional to self-ligating bracket systems: is it possible to aggregate the experience with the former to the use of the latter?

Introduction

Orthodontics, just as any other science, has undergone advances in technology that aim at improving treatment efficacy with a view to reducing treatment time, providing patients with comfort, and achieving the expected, yet hardly attained long-term stability. The current advances in orthodontic technology seem to represent a period of transition between conventional brackets (with elastic ligatures) and self-ligating brackets systems. Scientific evidence does not always confirm the clear clinical advantages of the self-ligating system, particularly with regard to reduced time required for alignment and leveling (a relatively simple protocol), greater comfort for patients, and higher chances of performing treatment without extractions - even though the number of extractions is more closely related to patient's facial morphological pattern, regardless of the technique of choice. Orthodontics has recently and brilliantly used bracket individualization in compensatory treatment with a view to improving treatment efficacy with lower biological costs and reduced treatment time.

Objective

This paper aims at presenting a well-defined protocol employed to produce a better treatment performance during this period of technological transition. It explores the advantages of each system, particularly with regards to reduced treatment time and increased compensatory tooth movement in adult patients. It particularly addresses compensable Class III malocclusions, comparing the system of self-ligating brackets, with which greater expansive and protrusive tooth movement (maxillary arch) is expected, with conventional brackets Capelozza Prescription III, with which maintaining the original form of the arch (mandibular arch) with as little changes as possible is key to yield the desired results.

Effects of third-order torque on frictional force of self-ligating brackets

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effects of third-order torque on frictional properties of self-ligating brackets (SLBs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three SLBs (two passive and one active) and three archwires (0.016 × 0.022-inch nickel-titanium, and 0.017 × 0.025-inch and 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel) were used. Static friction was measured by drawing archwires though bracket slots with four torque levels (0°, 10°, 20°, 30°), using a mechanical testing machine (n  =  10). A conventional stainless-steel bracket was used for comparison. RESULTS were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests. Contact between the bracket and wire was studied using a scanning electron microscope.

RESULTS

In most bracket-wire combinations, increasing the torque produced a significant increase in static friction. Most SLB-wire combinations at all torques produced less friction than that from the conventional bracket. Active-type SLB-wire combinations showed higher friction than that from passive-type SLB-wire combinations in most conditions. When increasing the torque, more contact between the wall of a bracket slot and the edge of a wire was observed for all bracket types.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing torque when using SLBs causes an increase in friction, since contact between the bracket slot wall and the wire edge becomes greater; the design of brackets influences static friction.