Switch to Dark theme

References

Shivapuja PK, Berger J A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 106:472-480
Sims APT, Waters NE, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J Orthod. 1993; 15:377-385
Kambay B, Millett D, McHugh S Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J. Orthod. 2004; 26:327-332
Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 123:416-422
Thorstenson BS, Kusy RP Effect of archwire size and material on the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 122:295-305
Thurrow RC Letter: Elastic ligatures binding forces, and anchorage taxation. Am J Orthod. 1975; 67
Harradine NW Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001; 4:(4)220-227
Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res. 2001; 4:228-234
Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L A clinical trial of Damon 2 versus conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006; 6:480-485
Miles PG Smartclip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference?. Aust Orthod J. 2005; 21:123-127
Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T Self-ligation vs. Conventional brackets in treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132:208-215
Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentfacial Orthop. 2009; 135:597-602
Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT Alignment efficiency of Damon 3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134:470.e1-470.e8
Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Aust Orthod J. 2008; 24:102-109
Fleming PS, Johal A Self ligating brackets in Orthodontics; a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80:575-584
Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137:726e1-726e18
Richmond S The PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): methods to determine outcome of orthodontic treatment in terms of improvement and standards. Eur J Orthod. 1992; 14:180-187
Richmond S Personal audit in Orthodontics. Br J Orthod. 1993; 20:135-144
Fox N The first 100 cases: a personal audit of orthodontic treatment assessed by the PAR (peer assessment rating) index. Br Dent J. 1993; 174:290-297
O'Brien KD, Shaw WC, Roberts CT The use of occlusal indices in assessing the provision of orthodontic treatment by the hospital orthodontic service of England and Wales. Br J Orthod. 1993; 20:25-35
Storey E, Smith R Force in orthodontics and its relation to tooth movement. Aust J Dent. 1952; 56:11-18
Ren Y, Maltha JC, Van't Hof MA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM Optimum force magnitude for orthodontic tooth movement: a mathematic model. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125:71-77
Badawi H Three-dimensional orthodontic force measurements: high upper cuspid. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136:518-528

Treatment efficiency of self-ligating brackets

From Volume 5, Issue 1, January 2012 | Pages 15-19

Authors

Peter Ollivere

BDS, MSc(Orth)

Associate Specialist Orthodontics, Eastbourne District General Hospital, Specialist Orthodontic Practitioner, Eastbourne, East Sussex, UK

Articles by Peter Ollivere

Abstract

This article investigates the treatment efficiency of self-ligating brackets in terms of overall treatment times and the number of appointments required compared with conventional ligation bracket systems. Two retrospective studies are reported which may shed further light on the subject.

Clinical Relevance: Treatment efficiency is a highly desirable goal for any bracket system. Establishing the veracity of any claims of superior performance is essential before basing clinical practice on those claims.

Article

Manufacturers of self-ligating bracket systems claim that their brackets produce faster treatment.1 They claim that the low friction of self-ligating brackets will allow more rapid tooth alignment. This assumption needs careful investigation.

Conventional ligation is considered to be the use of an elastic module to hold the archwire into a Siamese twin bracket. Figure 1 shows two types of ligation with elastic modules; ‘conventional circle’ and ‘figure of eight’ (Figures b and d), plus examples of wire and self-ligation (Figures a and c).

Many articles2,3,4,5,6 have shown that friction is considerably lower in self-ligating systems than with conventional ligation. In fact, the orthodontic specialty is oversaturated with self-ligation frictional studies and the American Journal of Orthodontics has refused to accept any further papers on the topic.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Orthodontic Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available

Already have an account? Sign in here