Evaluation of different types of self-ligating brackets guided by electromagnetic field simulator on rotational control
Aim: The objective of this study was to measure and compare the in vitro performance of active and passive self-ligating brackets in orthodontic rotation by means of an electromagneticfield simulation. Methods: The study sample consisted of 32 mandibular right central incisor brackets (n=8), slot 0.022”, that were divided into the following groups: 1) BioQuick® (Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany) active brackets; 2) In- Ovation®R (Dentsply-GAC, Central Islip, New York, USA) active brackets; 3) Damon-Q® (Ormco, Orange, California, USA) passive brackets, and 4) Smartclip® (3M, Monrovia, California, USA) passive brackets. The orthodontic wire used was CuNiTi round section 0.016”, thermoactivated at 35o C (ORMCO- Orthodontics Glendora, California, USA). The experiment wasperformed in a simulator machine, composed of two fixedlateral axes and a movable central axis, which simulated the dental rotation. Qualitative analysis (n = 4) was performed using SEM. After the descriptive and exploratory analysis, the yield and grade data were submitted to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey test, considering the level ofsignificance of 5%. Results: In-Ovation®R brackets showedsignificantly higher yield than BioQuick® and Damon-Q®. Damon-Q® brackets presented a significantly lower mean valuethan In-Ovation R and Smartclip®. BioQuick® did not differsignificantly from Damon-Q® and Smartclip®. In-Ovation®R did not differ significantly from Smartclip®. Conclusion: In the present study, it was observed that there is a difference in rotational control in the different self-ligating brackets tested being the best rotational control was the In-Ovation R® group (active), followed in descending order by the groups Smartclip® (passive), Bioquick® (active) and Damon Q® (passive).
2. Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 Feb;111(2):119-40.
3. Souza LF, Freitas MR. [Evaluation of rotation relapse of the second lower bicuspids in orthodontically treated patients, five years post treatment]. Dent Press J Orthod. 1999;4(1):52-62. Portuguese.
4. Benetti JJ, Pellegrin MCJ, Nóbrega C, Gick MR, Zucchi TU, et al. [Inflence of the model of the bracket in the orthodontic movement of rotation: comparative study]. Orthod Sci Pract. 2012;5(17):28-35. Portuguese.
5. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006 May;76(3):480-5.
6. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Camporesi M, Defraia E, Barbato E. Forces produced by different nonconventional bracket or ligature systems during alignment of apically displaced teeth. Angle Orthod. 2009 May;79(3):533-9. doi: 10.2319/050508-249.1.
7. Heo W, Baek SH. Friction properties according to vertical and horizontal tooth displacement and bracket type during initial leveling and alignment. Angle Orthod. 2011 Jul;81(4):653-61. doi: 10.2319/072310-431.1.
8. Heiser W. Time: a new orthodontic philosophy. J Clin Orthod. 1998 Jan;32(1):44-53.
9. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Oct;120(4):361-70.
10. Parkin N. Clinical pearl: clinical tips with System-R. J Orthod. 2005 Dec;32(4):244-6.
11. 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 Aug;132(2):208-15.
12. Alobeid A, El-Bialy T, Khawatmi S, Dirk C, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Comparison of the force levels among labial and lingual self-ligating and conventional brackets in simulated misaligned teeth. Eur J Orthod. 2017 Aug 1;39(4):419-425. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjw082.
13. 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 May;121(5):472-82.
14. Harradine NWT. The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Sem Orthod. 2008 Mar;14(1):5-18.
15. Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jun;137(6):726.e1-726.e18; discussion 726-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.11.009.
16. Birnie DJ. The Damon Passive Self-Ligating Appliance System. Sem Orthod. 2008 Mar;14(1):19-35.
17. Pesce RE, Uribe F, Janakiraman N, Neace WP, Peterson DR, Nanda R. Evaluation of rotational control and forces generated during first-order archwire deflections: a comparison of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):245-54. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr119.
18. Papageorgiou SN, Konstantinidis I, Papadopoulou K, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Clinical effects of pre- adjusted edgewise orthodontic brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):350-63. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt064.
19. Romanyk DL, George A, Li Y, Heo G, Carey JP, Major PW. Influence of second-order bracket-archwire misalignments on loads generated during third-order archwire rotation in orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2016 May;86(3):358-64. doi: 10.2319/052815-365.1.
20. Harradine N. Self-ligating brackets increase treatment efficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Jan;143(1):10-8, 11-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.011.
21. Sondhi A, Kalha AS. The tandem archwire concept with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod. 2014 Apr;48(4):221-30. Erratum in: J Clin Orthod. 2014 Aug;48(8):462.
22. Pandis N, Eliades T, Partowi S, Bourauel C. Moments generated during simulated rotational correction with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):1030-4. doi: 10.2319/110307-516.1.
23. Badawi HM, Toogood RW, Carey JP, Heo G, Major PW. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 May;133(5):721-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.051.
24. Morina E, Eliades T, Pandis N, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2008 Jun;30(3):233-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn005.
25. Al-Thomali Y, Mohamed RN, Basha S. Torque expression in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets: A systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Jan 1;9(1):e123-e128. doi: 10.4317/jced.53187.
26. Romanyk DL, Au K, Isfeld D, Heo G, Major MP, Major PW. The effect of buccal-lingual slot dimension size on third-order torque response. Eur J Orthod. 2017 Apr 1;39(2):209-214. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjw043.
27. Higa RH, Henriques JFC, Janson G, Matias M, de Freitas KMS, Henriques FP, et al. Force level of small diameter nickel-titanium orthodontic wires ligated with different methods. Prog Orthod. 2017 Dec;18(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40510-017-0175-z.
28. Tageldin H, de Llano-Pérula MC, Thevissen P, Celis JP, Willems G. Quantifying resistance to sliding in orthodontics: a systematic review. Br J Med Med Res. 2016;17(2):1-30.
29. Sifakakis I, Eliades T. Laboratory evaluation of orthodontic biomechanics–the clinical applications revisited. Sem Orthod. 2017;23(4):382-9. doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2017.07.008.
30. Pandis N, Eliades T, Partowi S, Bourauel C. Forces exerted by conventional and self-ligating brackets during simulated first- and second-order corrections. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 May;133(5):738-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.01.001.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- All content of the journal, except where identified, is licensed under a Creative Commons attribution-type BY. The online journal is free and open access.