European journal of orthodontics · 2017
Comparison of the force levels among labial and lingual self-ligating and conventional brackets in simulated misaligned teeth.
Сравнительное 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.
Alobeid Ahmad, El-Bialy Tarek, Khawatmi Said, Dirk Cornelius, Jäger Andreas, Bourauel Christoph
Аннотация
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate force levels exerted by levelling arch wires with labial and lingual conventional and self-ligating brackets.
MATERIALS/METHODS: The tested orthodontic brackets were of the 0.022-in slot size for labial and 0.018-in for lingual brackets and were as follows: 1. Labial brackets: (i) conventional bracket (GAC-Twin, Dentsply), (ii) passive self-ligating (SL) brackets (Damon-Q®, ORMCO; Ortho classic H4™, Orthoclassic; FLI®SL, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics) and (iii) active SL brackets (GAC In-Ovation®C, DENTSPLY and SPEED™, Strite). 2. Lingual brackets: (i) conventional brackets (Incognito, 3M and Joy™, Adenta); (ii) passive SL bracket (GAC In-Ovation®LM™, Dentsply and (iii) active SL bracket (Evolution SLT, Adenta). Thermalloy-NiTi 0.013-in and 0.014-in arch wires (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics) were used with all brackets. The simulated malocclusion represented a maxillary central incisor displaced 2 mm gingivally (x-axis) and 2 mm labially (z-axis).
RESULTS: Lingual bracket systems showed higher force levels (2.4 ± 0.2 to 3.8 ± 0.2 N) compared to labial bracket systems (from 1.1 ± 0.1 to 2.2 ± 0.4 N). However, the differences between SL and conventional bracket systems were minor and not consistent (labial brackets: 1.2 ± 0.1 N for the GAC Twin and 1.1 ± 0.1 to 1.6 ± 0.1 N for the SL brackets with 0.013-in thermalloy; lingual brackets: 2.5 ± 0.2 to 3.5 ± 0.1 N for the conventional and 2.7 ± 0.3 to 3.4 ± 0.1 N for the SL brackets with 0.013-in Thermalloy).
LIMITATIONS: This is an in vitro study with different slot sizes in the labial and lingual bracket systems, results should be interpreted with caution.
CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Lingual bracket systems showed higher forces compared to labial bracket systems that might be of clinical concern. We recommend highly flexible nickel titanium arch wires lower than 0.013-in for the initial levelling and alignment especially with lingual appliances.
MATERIALS/METHODS: The tested orthodontic brackets were of the 0.022-in slot size for labial and 0.018-in for lingual brackets and were as follows: 1. Labial brackets: (i) conventional bracket (GAC-Twin, Dentsply), (ii) passive self-ligating (SL) brackets (Damon-Q®, ORMCO; Ortho classic H4™, Orthoclassic; FLI®SL, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics) and (iii) active SL brackets (GAC In-Ovation®C, DENTSPLY and SPEED™, Strite). 2. Lingual brackets: (i) conventional brackets (Incognito, 3M and Joy™, Adenta); (ii) passive SL bracket (GAC In-Ovation®LM™, Dentsply and (iii) active SL bracket (Evolution SLT, Adenta). Thermalloy-NiTi 0.013-in and 0.014-in arch wires (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics) were used with all brackets. The simulated malocclusion represented a maxillary central incisor displaced 2 mm gingivally (x-axis) and 2 mm labially (z-axis).
RESULTS: Lingual bracket systems showed higher force levels (2.4 ± 0.2 to 3.8 ± 0.2 N) compared to labial bracket systems (from 1.1 ± 0.1 to 2.2 ± 0.4 N). However, the differences between SL and conventional bracket systems were minor and not consistent (labial brackets: 1.2 ± 0.1 N for the GAC Twin and 1.1 ± 0.1 to 1.6 ± 0.1 N for the SL brackets with 0.013-in thermalloy; lingual brackets: 2.5 ± 0.2 to 3.5 ± 0.1 N for the conventional and 2.7 ± 0.3 to 3.4 ± 0.1 N for the SL brackets with 0.013-in Thermalloy).
LIMITATIONS: This is an in vitro study with different slot sizes in the labial and lingual bracket systems, results should be interpreted with caution.
CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Lingual bracket systems showed higher forces compared to labial bracket systems that might be of clinical concern. We recommend highly flexible nickel titanium arch wires lower than 0.013-in for the initial levelling and alignment especially with lingual appliances.