Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: Effects of archwire size and material

被引:116
作者
Turnbull, Nicholas R. [1 ]
Birnie, David J. [1 ]
机构
[1] Queen Alexandra Hosp, Dept Orthodont, Portsmouth PO6 3LY, Hants, England
关键词
D O I
10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.018
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 [口腔医学];
摘要
Introduction: In this prospective clinical study, we assessed the relative speed of archwire changes, comparing self-ligating brackets with conventional elastomeric ligation methods, and further assessed this in relation to the stage of orthodontic treatment represented by different wire sizes and types. Methods: The time taken to remove and ligate archwires for 131 consecutive patients treated with either self-ligating or conventional brackets was prospectively assessed. The study was carried out in the orthodontic department of a district general hospital in the United Kingdom. The main outcome measure was the time to remove or place elastomeric ligatures or open/close self-ligating brackets for 2 matched groups of fixed appliance patients: Damon2 self-ligating bracket (SDS Ormco, Orange, Calif) and a conventional mini-twin bracket (Orthos, SDS Ormco). The relative effects of various wire sizes and materials on ligation times were investigated. The study was carried out by 1 operator experienced in the use of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Results: The Damon2 self-ligating system had a significantly shorter mean archwire ligation time for both placing (P < .001) and removing (P < .01) wires compared with the conventional elastomeric system. Ligation of an archwire was approximately twice as quick with the self-ligating system. Opening a Damon slide was on average 1 second quicker per bracket than removing an elastic from the mini-twin brackets, and closing a slide was 2 seconds faster per bracket. This difference in ligation time between the Damon2 and the conventional mini-twin brackets became more marked for larger wire sizes used in later treatment stages. Conclusions: The type of bracket and the size of wire used are statistically significant predictors for speed of ligation and chairside time. The self-ligating system offered quicker and arguably more efficient wire removal and placement for most orthodontic treatment stages.
引用
收藏
页码:395 / 399
页数:5
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]
Berger J, 2001, J Clin Orthod, V35, P304
[2]
Friction in perspective [J].
Braun, S ;
Bluestein, M ;
Moore, BK ;
Benson, G .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 1999, 115 (06) :619-627
[3]
Damon D H, 1998, J Clin Orthod, V32, P670
[4]
Damon D H, 1998, Clin Orthod Res, V1, P52
[5]
Eberting J J, 2001, Clin Orthod Res, V4, P228
[6]
FORSBERG C-M, 1991, European Journal of Orthodontics, V13, P416
[7]
Harradine N W, 2001, Clin Orthod Res, V4, P220, DOI 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40406.x
[8]
Harradine N W T, 2003, J Orthod, V30, P262, DOI 10.1093/ortho/30.3.262
[9]
Henao SP, 2004, ANGLE ORTHOD, V74, P202
[10]
Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance [J].
Khambay, B ;
Millett, D ;
McHugh, S .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2004, 26 (03) :327-332