Comparison of self-ligating Damon3 and conventional MBT brackets regarding alignment efficiency and pain experience: A randomized clinical trial

Arezoo Jahanbin, Nadia Hasanzadeh, Sara Khaki, Hooman Shafaee, Arezoo Jahanbin, Nadia Hasanzadeh, Sara Khaki, Hooman Shafaee

Abstract

Background. Self-ligating brackets might be more efficient than conventional appliance systems during the initial alignment stage of orthodontic treatment due to reduced frictional resistance. This study aimed to compare the alignment efficiency and pain experience of Damon3 self-ligating and MBT pre-adjusted brackets in the initial alignment stage. Methods. In this randomized clinical trial, 30 patients aged 14‒20 years, who needed non-extraction treatment in both maxillary and mandibular arches, were randomly assigned to two groups; 15 patients were treated with MBT pre-adjusted brackets, and 15 patients received Damon3 self-ligating brackets, both with 0.022-in slots. Alginate impressions were taken at the start of treatment (T0) and four monthly visits (T1, T2, T3, and T4). Little's irregularity index (LII) was used to assess the tooth displacements. The patients rated their pain experience immediately after the insertion of the archwire, 4 hours, 24 hours, 3 days, 7 days, and at each monthly visit using a visual analog scale (VAS). Results. The rate of upper dental alignment between T0 and T4 was significantly higher with the Damon3 compared to MBT brackets (P=0.015). Although significantly more changes in the lower LII scores were observed during the first three months with the Damon3 system, the rate of improvement in the irregularity of lower teeth over the 4-month period was not significantly different between the two groups (P=0.50). The patients' pain experience was not significantly different between the bracket groups (P=0.29). Conclusion. During the four-month alignment stage, significantly more improvement in the upper dental irregularity was observed with self-ligating compared to conventional brackets. The bracket type had no effect on pain experience during the alignment stage.

Keywords: Alignment; Damon; conventional brackets; orthodontic; pain; self-ligating.

© 2019 Jahanbin et al.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 2

References

    1. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):228–34. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40407.x.
    1. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod. 2003;30(3):262–73. doi: 10.1093/ortho/30.3.262.
    1. Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW, Sandrik JL. A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991;100(6):513–22. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70091-A.
    1. Krishnan M, Kalathil S, Abraham KM. Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various archwire alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(5):675–82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.034.
    1. Yeh CL, Kusnoto B, Viana G, Evans CA, Drummond JL. In-vitro evaluation of frictional resistance between brackets with passive-ligation designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(6):704 e11–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.041.
    1. Iwasaki LR, Beatty MW, Randall CJ, Nickel JC. Clinical ligation forces and intraoral friction during sliding on a stainless steel archwire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123(4):408–15. doi: 10.1067/mod.2003.61.
    1. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121(5):472–82. doi: 10.1067/mod.2002.121562.
    1. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):220–7. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40406.x.
    1. Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(2):119–40.
    1. Kvam E, Bondevik O, Gjerdet NR. Traumatic ulcers and pain in adults during orthodontic treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1989;17(3):154–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1989.tb00012.x.
    1. Scheurer PA, Firestone AR, Burgin WB. Perception of pain as a result of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod. 1996;18(4):349–57.
    1. Oliver RG, Knapman YM. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod. 1985;12(4):179–88.
    1. Sergl HG, Klages U, Zentner A. Functional and social discomfort during orthodontic treatment--effects on compliance and prediction of patients' adaptation by personality variables. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(3):307–15.
    1. Patel V. Non-completion of active orthodontic treatment. Br J Orthod. 1992;19(1):47–54. doi: 10.1179/bjo.19.1.47.
    1. Berger J, Byloff FK. The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets. J Clin Orthod. 2001;35(5):304–8.
    1. Taylor NG, Ison K. Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwires in the buccal segments. Angle Orthod. 1996;66(3):215–22. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1996)066<0215:FRBOBA>;2.
    1. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod. 1975;68(5):554–63.
    1. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(3):283–91.
    1. Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(2):216–22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.018.
    1. Gaspar Ribeiro DA, deAlmeida MR, Conti AC, Navarro R, Oltramari-Navarro P. et al. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with self-ligating and conventional edgewise appliances: A dental cast study. Dentistry. 2012;2:128. doi: 10.4172/2161-1122.1000128.
    1. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006;76:480–5. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0480:ACTODV];2.
    1. Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: Is there a difference. Aust Orthod J. 2005;21:123–7.
    1. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne M. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:470 e1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.018.
    1. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: A prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132:208–15. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.030.
    1. Čelar A, Schedlberger M, Dörfler P, Bertl M. Systematic review on self-ligating vs conventional brackets: initial pain, number of visits, treatment time. J Orofac Orthop. 2013;74(1):40–51. doi: 10.1007/s00056-012-0116-x.
    1. Fleming PS, Dibiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system A randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(1):46–50. doi: 10.2319/121007-579.1.
    1. Scott P, Sherriff M, Dibiase AT, Cobourne MT. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30:227–232. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjm131.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit