Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to compare dentoalveolar changes in mandibular arch, regarding transversal measures and buccal bone thickness, in patients undergoing the initial phase of orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional bracket systems. METHODS: A sample of 25 patients requiring orthodontic treatment was assessed based on the bracket type. Group 1 comprised 13 patients bonded with 0.022-in self-ligating brackets (SLB). Group 2 included 12 patients bonded with 0.022-in conventional brackets (CLB). Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and a 3D program (Dolphin) assessed changes in transversal width of buccal bone (TWBB) and buccal bone thickness (BBT) before (T1) and 7 months after treatment onset (T2). Measurements on dental casts were performed using a digital caliper. Differences between and within groups were analyzed by Student's t-test; Pearson correlation coefficient was also calculated. RESULTS: Significant mandibular expansion was observed for both groups; however, no significant differences were found between groups. There was significant decrease in mandibular buccal bone thickness and transversal width of buccal bone in both groups. There was no significant correlation between buccal bone thickness and dental arch expansion. CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences between self-ligating brackets and conventional brackets systems regarding mandibular arch expansion and changes in buccal bone thickness or transversal width of buccal bone.
Highlights
The ongoing search for innovation in Orthodontics has boosted the emergence or re-emergence of appliances so as to offer patients more comfort, shorter treatment time, improved post-treatment stability, and fewer side effects
This study aims at testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference, regarding changes in transversal width and buccal bone thickness in the mandibular arch, between patients undergoing the initial phase of orthodontic treatment (7 months) with Self-ligating brackets (SLB) and conventional ligating brackets (CLB) systems
Both samples were comparable at treatment onset regarding the following aspects: initial age, treatment time, intermolar distances, intersecond premolar distances, interfirst premolar distances, transversal width of buccal bone (TWBB) and buccal bone thickness (BBT) measurements
Summary
The ongoing search for innovation in Orthodontics has boosted the emergence or re-emergence of appliances so as to offer patients more comfort, shorter treatment time, improved post-treatment stability, and fewer side effects. Much empirical and anecdotal evidence as well as advantages were attributed to these appliances: increased patient comfort, better oral hygiene, increased patient cooperation, less chair time, shorter treatment time, greater patient acceptance, expansion, and less dental extractions.[1,2,3,4,5,6]. Correcting dental crowding without extractions or interproximal reductions requires an increase in arch perimeter in order to allow excellent teeth alignment. In the absence of distal movements, the dimensional changes of the arch involve transversal and buccal dental expansion.[7] It is a well-known fact that both self-ligating and conventional ligating brackets (CLB) when used for non-extraction treatment of dental crowding produce dentoalveolar expansion. The amount of transversal increase depends on the mechanics applied in each case.[7,8,9,10,11]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
