Different bracket–archwire combinations for simulated correction of two-dimensional tooth malalignment
Tóm tắt
Self-ligating brackets are widely believed to be more effective in clinical use and to involve less friction and force. Thus, the goal of this in vitro investigation was to experimentally assess the effectiveness of different bracket–archwire combinations and the force levels exerted in two-dimensional direction during correction of tooth malalignment. An important aspect of this objective was to determine whether the behaviors of conventional bracket systems with an elastic or steel ligature differ from that of self-ligating brackets. Three conventional (Mini Taurus®, RMO; Synergy®, RMO; Victory Series™, 3M Unitek) and three self-ligating bracket systems (Speed™, Strite; Smart Clip™, 3M Unitek; Time 3, American Orthodontics) were analyzed. All brackets had 0.018-inch (0.46-mm) slots and—except for the self-ligating brackets—were tested with both a steel ligature (0.25 mm; Remanium, Dentaurum) and an elastic rubber ligature (1.3 mm in diameter; Dentalastics, Dentaurum). They were fitted with four different round wires: a 0.30-mm stainless steel (3M Unitek), 0.38-mm stainless steel coaxial (Advanced Orthodontics), 0.30-mm Thermalloy NiTi (RMO), and 0.30-mm Orthonol NiTi (RMO) archwire. The orthodontic measurement and simulation system (OMSS) was used to simulate a two-dimensional (2 mm of infraocclusion and 2 mm of vestibular displacement) malalignment of tooth 21 inserted in a resin replica of a Frasaco model. Four brackets of the same type were assessed and four individual measurements taken per bracket to analyze initial force systems and corrective malalignment outcomes. The initial force systems and tooth movements varied distinctly between the different material combinations in conjunction with the ligation systems and archwire types used. The force systems generated were readily reproducible across individual measurements. Leveling outcomes and force systems between conventional steel-ligated and self-ligating brackets coincided in most cases. Both of these device configurations corrected the malalignment by 78–99 % on average. Rubber-ligated conventional brackets, by contrast, performed significantly worse due to exertion of significantly higher forces and 60 % less of a leveling effect. Our investigation demonstrates that both conventional steel-ligated brackets and self-ligating brackets, which are highlighted in the literature as highly efficient systems, lead to equivalent corrective outcomes in the treatment of tooth malalignments.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Bednar JR, Gruendemann GW, Sandrik JL (1991) A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 100:513–522
Bourauel C, Drescher D, Thier M (1992) An experimental apparatus for the simulation of three-dimensional movements in orthodontics. J Biomed Eng 14:371–378
Bourauel C, Drescher D, Nolte LP (1993) Computergestützte Entwicklung kieferorthopädischer Behandlungselemente aus NiTi-Memory-Legierungen am Beispiel einer pseudoelastischen Retraktionsfeder. Fortschr Kieferorthop 54:45–56
Bourauel C, Fries T, Drescher D, Plietsch R (1998) Surface roughness of orthodontic wires via atomic force microscopy, laser specular reflectance and profilometry. Eur J Orthodont 20:79–92
Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA (1989) Frictional forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 96:397–404
Drescher D, Bourauel C, Thier M (1990) Materialtechnische Besonderheiten orthodontischer Nickel-Titan-Drähte. Fortschr Kieferorthop 51:320–326
Drescher D, Bourauel C, Thier M (1991) Orthodontische Meß- und Simulationssystem (OMSS) für die statische und dynamische Analyse der Zahnbewegung. Fortschr Kieferorthop 52:133–140
Fansa M, Keilig L, Reimann S et al (2009) The leveling of effectivness of self-ligating and con ventional brackets for complex tooth malalignments. J Orofac Orthop 70:285–296
Frank CA (1979) An evaluation of frictional force generated between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. St. Louis University
Frank CA, Nikolai RJ (1980) A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic brackets and archwire. Am J Orthod 78:593–609
Girden ER (1992) ANOVA: repeated measures. Sage, Newbury Park
Harradine NW (2001) Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 4:220–227
Harradine NW (2003) Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 30:262–273
Matarese G, Nucera R, Militi A et al (2008) Evaluation of frictional forces during dental align-ment: an experimental model with 3 nonleveled brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:708–715
Miles PG (2005) SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 21:123–127
Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L (2006) A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 76:480–485
Pandis N, Bourauel C, Eliades T (2007) Changes in the stiffness of the ligating mechanism in retrieved active self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 132:834–837
Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T (2007) 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 132:208–215
Reicheneder CA, Gedrange T, Berrisch S et al (2008) Conventionally ligated versus self-ligating metal brackets − a comparative study. Eur J Orthod 30:654–660
Schumacher HA, Bourauel C, Drescher D (1990) Der Einfluß der Ligatur auf die Friktion zwi-schen Bracket und Bogen. Fortschr Kieferorthop 51:106–116
Schumacher HA, Bourauel C, Drescher D (1991) Bogengeführte Zahnbewegung, Dynamik, Ef-fektivität und Nebenwirkungen. Fortschr Kieferorthop 52:141–152
Schumacher HA, Bourauel C, Drescher D (1992) Deaktivierungsverhalten und Effektivität ver-schiedener orthodontischer Nivellierungsbögen—eine dynamische Analyse der Kraft-systeme. Fortschr Kieferorthop 53:273–285
Schumacher HA, Bourauel C, Drescher D (1999) The influence of bracket design on frictional losses in the bracket/arch wire system. J Orofac Orthop 60:335–347
Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT (2008) Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:470.e1–8
Tagawa D (2006) From good great. The Damon System vs. conventional appliances: a com-parative study. Clin Impressions 15:4–9
Tidy DC, Orth D (1989) Frictional force in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 96:249–254
Weinberger GL (2005) Smart Clip Self-ligating appliance system utilization guide. 3M Unitek product literature 2005.