Assessment of Dentoalveolar Changes Following Leveling and Alignment of Severely Crowded Upper Anterior Teeth Using Self-Ligating Brackets Alone or With Flapless Piezocision Compared to Traditional Brackets: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Abstract

Introduction Dental crowding is one of the most common types of malocclusions. It can be treated with or without extraction, depending on the severity of the crowding. Extraction-based orthodontic treatments are the preferred treatment option in cases of severe crowding, but they take longer than non-extraction cases. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the dentoalveolar changes following the orthodontic treatment of severely crowded maxillary anterior teeth in adults using self-ligating brackets alone or combined with flapless piezocision. Materials and methods The participants in this study were 63 patients (46 females and 17 males; mean age SD: 19.71 ± 2.74 years) who attended the Department of Orthodontics at the University of Damascus from January 2020 to December 2021. The participants were divided into three groups at random: Group (1): traditional brackets group, Group (2): self-ligating brackets group; and Group (3): self-ligating brackets with flapless piezocision group. Little's Irregularity Index (LII) was measured at five assessment times: before the onset of orthodontic treatment (T0), after one month (T1), after two months (T2), after three months (T3), and at the end of the leveling and alignment phase (T4). The intercanine width (lingual), the intercanine width (cusp), and the canine rotation angle were measured at two assessment times: before the onset of orthodontic treatment (T0) and at the end of the leveling and alignment phase (T4). Results The three studied groups had statistically significant differences in terms of LII during the first three months, and the most significant improvement of LII was in the self-ligating brackets with the piezocision group (P < 0.001). In addition, the intercanine width (cusp) at the end of the leveling and aligning phase revealed greater mean values in both self-ligating brackets groups compared to the traditional brackets group, and the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Otherwise, no statistically significant differences were found at the end of the leveling and aligning phase in the intercanine width (lingual) or the canine rotation angle between the three studied groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion Using self-ligating brackets with flapless piezocision revealed more significant results concerning LII as compared to other groups. Thus, combining these two acceleration methods could get more effective results in aligning severely crowded teeth. Self-ligating brackets, whether used alone or with flapless piezocision, resulted in greater intercanine width at the cusplevel. The type of brackets (traditional or self-ligating) did not affect the canine rotation angle.