Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2022
Comparative assessment of dental and basal arch dimensions of passive and active self-ligating versus conventional appliances : A randomized clinical trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Alabdullah Mohannad M, Burhan Ahmad S, Nabawia Alaa, Nawaya Fehmieh, Saltaji Humam
Аннотация
PURPOSE: In this parallel, three-arm, single-center randomized trial, the dental and basal arch dimensions after orthodontic treatment using conventional brackets and passive and active self-ligating (SL) brackets were compared.
METHODS: Patients needing comprehensive orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated to the active SL, passive SL, or conventional brackets (control) group. All patients were treated with a standardized arch wires sequence. Eligibility criteria included class I malocclusion in the permanent dentition, crowding (4-6 mm), and adequate oral hygiene. The primary outcome was intermolar width, based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Secondary outcomes were maxillary and mandibular widths in the canines and premolars regions, dental arch depth, buccolingual inclination, and alignment duration. Blinding of outcome assessment was implemented. Patients were followed every 4 weeks until insertion of the stainless steel 0.019 × 0.025 wire. Mean values were computed from CBCT sections, and data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS: In all, 66 patients (ages 18-25 years) were randomized into a 1:1:1 ratio; 7 patients dropped out before treatment initiation. Examining dental arch dimensions in the canine and premolar regions showed that expansion of the maxillary dental arch was greatest in the passive SL brackets group, less in the active SL brackets group, and lowest in the control group (P < 0.01). Changes in maxillary intermolar width between the three groups were not significant, and changes in basal arch dimensions, depth of dental and basal arches, buccolingual inclination, and alignment duration were similar in the three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-ligating brackets were not more effective than conventional brackets when examining intermolar width, basal transverse dimensions, depth of the arch, and alignment duration.
METHODS: Patients needing comprehensive orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated to the active SL, passive SL, or conventional brackets (control) group. All patients were treated with a standardized arch wires sequence. Eligibility criteria included class I malocclusion in the permanent dentition, crowding (4-6 mm), and adequate oral hygiene. The primary outcome was intermolar width, based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Secondary outcomes were maxillary and mandibular widths in the canines and premolars regions, dental arch depth, buccolingual inclination, and alignment duration. Blinding of outcome assessment was implemented. Patients were followed every 4 weeks until insertion of the stainless steel 0.019 × 0.025 wire. Mean values were computed from CBCT sections, and data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance.
RESULTS: In all, 66 patients (ages 18-25 years) were randomized into a 1:1:1 ratio; 7 patients dropped out before treatment initiation. Examining dental arch dimensions in the canine and premolar regions showed that expansion of the maxillary dental arch was greatest in the passive SL brackets group, less in the active SL brackets group, and lowest in the control group (P < 0.01). Changes in maxillary intermolar width between the three groups were not significant, and changes in basal arch dimensions, depth of dental and basal arches, buccolingual inclination, and alignment duration were similar in the three groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Self-ligating brackets were not more effective than conventional brackets when examining intermolar width, basal transverse dimensions, depth of the arch, and alignment duration.