Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Ahmed M F El-Angbawi, David R Bearn, Grant T McIntyre, Ahmed M F El-Angbawi, David R Bearn, Grant T McIntyre

Abstract

Background: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician's choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment.

Methods/design: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient's perception of wearing orthodontic appliances.

Discussion: The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment.

Trial registration: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial CONSORT flow chart with projected numbers of participants throughout the trial. Intervention 1: 0.018-inch bracket slot system and intervention 2: 0.022-inch bracket slot system.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Trial key steps diagram. Showing the pre-treatment, mid-treatment and end of treatment records collected. Smile better questionnaire is completed by the study participants with regards to their experience wearing the fixed appliances. Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need Aesthetic Component (IOTN AC), Orthopantomograph (OPT).

References

    1. Mtaya M, Brudvik P, Astrom AN. Prevalence of malocclusion and its relationship with socio-demographic factors, dental caries, and oral hygiene in 12-to 14-year-old Tanzanian schoolchildren. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:467–476. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn125.
    1. Martins PA, Marques LS, Ramos-Jorge ML. Malocclusion: social, functional and emotional influence on children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2012;37:103–108.
    1. Kusy RP. “Two” much of a good thing? Then let’s pick one slot size and make it metric. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002;121:337–338. doi: 10.1067/mod.2002.123041.
    1. Detterline DA, Isikbay SC, Brizendine EJ, Kula KS. Clinical outcomes of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot using the ABO objective grading system. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:528–532. doi: 10.2319/060309-315.1.
    1. Amditis C, Smith LF. The duration of fixed orthodontic treatment: a comparison of two groups of patients treated using Edgewise brackets with 0.018” and 0.022” slots. Australian Orthod J. 2000;16:34–39.
    1. Epstein MB. Benefits and rationale of differential bracket slot sizes: the use of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot sizes within a single bracket system. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:1–2.
    1. Mavragani M, Vergari A, Selliseth NJ, Bøe OE, Wisth PJ. A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with a standard edgewise and a straight-wire edgewise technique. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:665–674. doi: 10.1093/ejo/22.6.665.
    1. Sameshima GT, Sinclair PM. Predicting and preventing root resorption: part II. Treat Factors Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119:511–515. doi: 10.1067/mod.2001.113410.
    1. Rubin RM, Re A plea for agreement. Angle Orthod. 2001;71:iv.
    1. Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. J Am Med Assoc. 2001;285:1987–1991. doi: 10.1001/jama.285.15.1987.
    1. Brook PH, Shaw WC. The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod. 1989;11:309–320.
    1. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2001;4:228–234. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40407.x.
    1. Malmgren O, Goldson L, Hill C, Orwin A, Petrini L, Lundberg M. Root resorption after orthodontic treatment of traumatized teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1982;82:487–491. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90317-7.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅