A comparative in-vivo evaluation of the alignment efficiency of 5 ligation methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial

Duration of orthodontic treatment with clear aligners versus fixed appliances in crowding cases: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To critically appraise and assess the currently observed evidence about the difference in orthodontic treatment duration between clear aligners and fixed appliances in crowding cases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search without limitations was conducted from inception to June 2023 covering nine databases: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Trip, CINAHL via EBSCO, EMBASE via OVID and ProQuest. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and matched non-randomized studies were included in this systematic review. Risk of Bias was assessed via Cochrane's tool (RoB 2) for RCTs and ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was employed to evaluate the overall quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Out of the 3537 articles initially identified, ten eligible studies were included in this systematic review; six were RCTs. Only one study offered extraction-based treatment, while the other nine adopted non-extraction treatments. According to the GRADE, there is low evidence that treatment duration in mild to moderate crowding cases with clear aligners is similar to that in fixed orthodontic appliances. Meta-analysis was not administered due to high inconsistency.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on currently available information, there was no significant difference in the treatment duration between the CA and FA groups in mild to moderate crowding cases. Further well-performed RCTs, especially in severe cases, are required.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Time efficiency is an essential outcome measure for clinical orthodontic practice. While the type of appliance used is a critical determinant of treatment duration, orthodontists should be aware of other factors that can significantly impact treatment time, such as patient and treatment-related factors.

Evaluation of Stresses Generated with Two Different Self-Ligating Orthodontic Bracket Systems - A Finite Element Analysis

AIM

To determine stresses generated in the posterior teeth region by two different self-ligating systems, 3M Unitek SmartClip and Damon Q Self-ligating brackets, using the finite element method (FEM).

METHODOLOGY

Computed tomography (CT) scan of maxilla was taken using Mimics software, and the Dicom data were imported into Hypermesh 13.0 software to convert it into a geometric model and then into FEM. Physical models of both the brackets were constructed and positioned on the teeth. Post archwire modeling, contact is defined between the bracket slot and 0.014" NiTi arch wire. The final assembled model was exported to ANSYS 12.1 for analysis, and 60 grams of load was applied at the ends of the arch wire.

RESULTS

On using 0.014" CuNiTi in both the bracket systems, stresses generated on the root surface were found to be maximum on the first molar region, followed by the first premolar, second molar, canine, and second premolar regions. Comparison between the two bracket systems showed differences in the stresses generated, where higher stresses were generated at all regions in the Damon Q bracket system, except the inter-second premolar region.

CONCLUSION

Maximum stresses were observed with the 3M Unitek SmartClip bracket system at the second premolar cervical region when compared to the Damon Q system. In both the cortical bone and cancellous bone, maximum stresses were observed at the second premolar cervical in the Damon Q bracket system region.

Comparison of the friction forces delivered by different elastomeric patterns and metal ligature on conventional metal brackets with a NiTi arch wire versus a self-ligating system: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to measure the frictional resistance of different types of ligatures used on conventional and self-ligating brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Monoblock (conventional) and Portia (self-ligating) brackets were used and the archwire used was nickel-titanium. On conventional brackets the ligatures tested were the Elastomeric type and steel 0.30 tie-wire. The groups were divided according to the ligature types (n=8): (1) conventional elastomeric ligature; (2) relaxed conventional elastomeric ligature; (3) elastomeric ligature in shape-8; (4) double vertical elastomeric ligatures; (5) double-crossed elastomeric ligatures; (6) crossed ligature; (7) steel wire ligature; and (8) self-ligating ligature (self-ligating bracket). A segment of five brackets, each ligature types, was mounted. The archwire, between the bracket and the ligature, was connected on Instron® Universal test machine to simulate the frictional resistance. The maximum frictional resistance was obtained, and the mean values were submitted to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey's post-hoc test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

The elastomeric ligature in shape-8 showed the highest value compared with other groups (P<0.05). Although the crossed elastomeric ligature presented the lowest mean value and it was not statistically different regarding relaxed conventional elastomeric ligature, steel wire ligature and self-ligating (P≥0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The frictional resistance was influenced by ligature types. Elastomeric Ligature in shape-8 showed the highest frictional force. Crossed Elastomeric Ligature had the lowest frictional force value.

Is there any difference between conventional, passive and active self-ligating brackets? A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

To test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in treatment efficiency between therapies undertaken with conventional (CBs), passive self-ligating (PSLBs) or active self-ligating (ASLBs) brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic search was performed in 3 data bases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to January 2019. Additional references were hand searched. Search was strictly restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split-mouth design studies (SMDs). RCTs and SMDs were initially processed separately and subsequently combined in a network meta-analysis. The following variables were evaluated: treatment duration, number of visits, occlusal outcomes, alignment rate, transverse arch dimensional changes, incisor position modification, rate of space closure, anchorage loss, bond failure, root resorption, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of alignment, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal variables, quality of life.

RESULTS

On 229 papers, 30 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally included in this study. Out of 85 comparisons, 16 only revealed statistically significant differences. It was quicker to untie and ligate an 0.014 NiTi arch from/in 6 ASLBs anterior ceramic brackets compared to 6 ceramic CBs. It was also more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025 SS wire in/from PSLB's brackets compared to CB's attachments. Compared to conventional brackets, there was less maxillary incisor proclination with PSLBs in non-extraction cases. Moreover, there was less bleeding on probing 4-5 weeks after bonding with PSLBs compared to CBs brackets. The only significant difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. The network meta-analysis revealed that IMPA was greater in extractions cases with CBs compared with both ASLBs (+2,5°) and PSLBs (+1,6°).

CONCLUSIONS

The vast majority of the studied variables did not show any significant differences between the three types of brackets. The most significant findings were that it was quicker to insert and remove archwires from ASLBs compared to CBs, and it was more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025" stainless steel wire in/from PSLBs compared to CBs. The major difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. Most of the claims put forward by the suppliers were not substantiated by our network meta-analysis.

Comparison of frictional resistance between passive self-ligating brackets and slide-type low-friction ligature brackets during the alignment and leveling stage

Background

To compare the frictional resistance between passive self-ligating brackets and conventional brackets with low-friction ligature under bracket/archwire and root/bone interface during dental alignment and leveling.

Material and Methods

A tridimensional model of the maxilla and teeth of a patient treated with conventional brackets, and slide ligatures was generated employing the SolidWorks modeling software. SmartClip self-ligating brackets and Logic Line conventional brackets were assembled with slide low-friction ligatures, utilizing archwires with different diameters and alloys used for the alignment and leveling stage. Friction caused during the bracket/archwire interface and stress during the bone/root interface were compared through a finite element model.

Results

SmartClip and Logic Line brackets with slide elastomeric low-friction elastomeric ligature showed similar frictional stress values of 0.50 MPa and 0.64 MPa, respectively. Passive self-ligating brackets transmitted a lower load along the periodontal ligament, compared to conventional brackets with a low-friction ligature.

Conclusions

Slide low-friction elastomeric ligatures showed frictional forces during the bracket/archwire interface similar to those of the SmartClip brackets, while the distribution of stresses and deformations during the root/bone interface were lower in the passive self-ligating brackets.

Key words:Orthodontic friction, finite element analysis, orthodontic brackets, orthodontic wires.

Therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Over the last few years, the use of self-ligating brackets in orthodontics has progressed considerably. These systems have been the subject of numerous studies with good levels of evidence making it possible to evaluate their efficacy and efficiency compared to conventional brackets. The aim of this study was to evaluate the therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets by means of a systematic review of the scientific literature.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic study was undertaken in the form of a recent search of the electronic Pubmed database, oriented by the use of several keywords combined by Boolean operators relating to the therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets through the study of tooth alignment, space closure, expansion, treatment duration and degree of discomfort. The search was limited to randomized controlled studies, and two independent readers identified studies corresponding to the selection criteria.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The chosen articles comprised 20 randomized controlled trials. The studies analyzed revealed the absence of significant differences between the two types of system on the basis of the clinical criteria adopted, thereby refuting the hypothesis of the superiority of self-ligating brackets over conventional systems.

Friction behavior of self-ligating and conventional brackets with different ligature systems

OBJECTIVES

Self-ligating brackets are widely believed to offer better clinical efficiency and, in particular, less friction. Thus, the goal of this in vitro investigation was to assess the friction behavior of different bracket/archwire/ligature combinations during simulated canine retraction. An important aspect of this work was to determine whether conventional bracket systems behave differently in passive or active self-ligating brackets used with a Slide™ ligature, an elastic ligature, or a steel ligature.

METHODS

Three conventional (Contour, Class One; Discovery(®), Dentaurum; Mystique MB, GAC) and six self-ligating (Carriere SL, Class One; Clarity™ SL, 3M Unitek; Damon3, Ormco; In-Ovation(®) C, GAC; Speed Appliance, Speed System™; QuicKlear(®), Forestadent(®)) bracket systems were analyzed. All brackets featured a 0.022″ slot (0.56 mm). Each conventional system was tested with a steel ligature (0.25 mm; Remanium(®), Dentaurum), an elastic ligature (1.3 mm in diameter; Dentalastics, Dentaurum), and a modified elastic ligature (Slide™; Leone(®)). Each combination was used with four archwires, including rectangular stainless steel (0.46 × 0.64 mm, 0.018 × 0.025″, Dentaurum), rectangular nickel-titanium with Teflon coating (0.46 × 0.64 mm, 0.018 × 0.025″, Forestadent(®)), round coaxial nickel-titanium (0.46 mm, 0.018″, Speed), and half-round/half-square (D-profile) stainless steel (0.46 mm, 0.018″, Speed). In the orthodontic measurement and simulation system (OMSS), retraction of a canine was simulated on a Frasaco model replicated in resin. Based on the force systems, the respective friction values were determined. For each combination of materials, five brackets of the same type were tested and five single measurements performed.

RESULTS

Friction values were found to vary distinctly with the different combinations, modifiers being the ligature systems and the archwire types. Any significant friction differences between the steel-ligated, Slide™-ligated, and self-ligated brackets were sporadic. All three systems were associated with average friction values of 40 %. Active self-ligating brackets and elastic-ligated conventional brackets, by contrast, generally differed significantly from the three above-mentioned bracket systems and showed distinctly higher friction values averaging 59 and 67 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

While passive self-ligating bracket systems have frequently been touted as advantageous in the literature, they should not be regarded as the only favorable system. Steel-ligated and Slide™-ligated conventional bracket systems are capable of offering similar friction performance.

Intraoral photobiomodulation-induced orthodontic tooth alignment: a preliminary study

BACKGROUND

Numerous strategies have been proposed to decrease orthodontic treatment time. Photobiomodulation (PBM) has previously been demonstrated to assist in this objective. The aim of this study was to test if intraoral PBM increases the rate of tooth alignment and reduces the time required to resolve anterior dental crowding.

METHODS

Nineteen orthodontic subjects with Class I or Class II malocclusion and Little's Irregularity Index (LII) ≥ 3 mm were selected from a pool of applicants, providing 28 total arches. No cases required extraction. The test group (N = 11, 18 arches, 10 upper, 8 lower) received daily PBM treatment with an intraoral LED device (OrthoPulse™, Biolux Research Ltd.) during orthodontic treatment, while the control group (N = 8, 10 arches, 3 upper, 7 lower) received only orthodontic treatment. The PBM device exposed the buccal side of the gums to near-infrared light with a continuous 850-nm wavelength, generating an average daily energy density of 9.5 J/cm(2). LII was measured at the start (T0) of orthodontic treatment until alignment was reached (T1, where LII ≤ 1 mm). The control group was mostly bonded with 0.018-in slot self-ligating SPEED brackets (Hespeler Orthodontics, Cambridge, ON. Canada), while conventionally-ligating Ormco Mini-Diamond twins were used on the PBM group (Ormco, Glendora, Calif. USA). Both groups progressed through alignment with NiTi arch-wires from 0.014-in through to 0.018-in (Ormco), with identical arch-wire changes. The rate of anterior alignment, in LII mm/week, and total treatment time was collected for both groups. Cox proportional hazards models were used to compare groups and while considering age, sex, ethnicity, arch and degree of crowding.

RESULTS

The mean alignment rate for the PBM group was significantly higher than that of the control group, with an LII change rate of 1.27 mm/week (SD 0.53, 95 % CI ± 0.26) versus 0.44 mm/week (SD 0.20, 95 % CI ± 0.12), respectively (p = 0.0002). The treatment time to alignment was significantly smaller for the PBM group, which achieved alignment in 48 days (SD 39, 95 % CI ± 39), while the control group took 104 days (SD 55, 95 % CI ±19, p = 0.0053) on average. These results demonstrated that intraoral PBM increased the average rate of tooth movement by 2.9-fold, resulting in a 54 % average decrease in alignment duration versus control. The average PBM compliance to daily treatments was 93 % during alignment.

CONCLUSIONS

Under the limitations of this study, the findings suggest that intraoral PBM could be used to decrease anterior alignment treatment time, which could consequently decrease full orthodontic treatment time. However, due to its limitations, further research in the form of a large, randomized trial is needed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02267837 . Registered 10 October 2014.

Mandibular changes during initial alignment with SmartClip self-ligating and conventional brackets: A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

Objective

To test the null hypothesis that SmartClip self-ligating brackets are more effective than conventional brackets for initial mandibular alignment and identify influential factors.

Methods

Fifty patients were randomly allocated to two equal treatment groups by using an online randomization program: self-ligating group (SmartClip brackets) and conventional group (Gemini brackets). The archwire sequence was standardized. Changes in anterior irregularity index, intercanine width, and intermolar width were assessed on plaster models at 8th and 16th weeks. Changes in incisor position and inclination were assessed on lateral cephalometric radiographs at 16 weeks. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were performed with paired t-test and Student's t-test, respectively. Multiple linear regression was performed to identify variables affecting improvement in anterior ambiguity.

Results

Data of 46 patients were analyzed; those missing an appointment (n = 2) or showing bracket breakage (n = 2) were excluded. Incisor inclination (p < 0.05), intercanine width (p < 0.05), and intermolar width (p > 0.05) increased at 8 and 16 weeks in both the groups; no significant intergroup differences were noted (p > 0.05). Initial anterior irregularity index and intercanine width change were significantly associated with improvement in anterior irregularity (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The null hypothesis was rejected. Bracket type has little effect on improvement in anterior ambiguity during initial mandibular alignment.