Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2012, vol. 49, nr 1, January-March, p. 13–17

Publication type: editorial article

Language: English

Self-Ligating Brackets – the Facts and the Myths

Zamki samoligaturujące – fakty i mity

Marlena Kosior1,, Joanna Antoszewska1,, Beata Kawala1,

1 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Abstract

Self-ligating brackets are not a new concept in orthodontics, however a revival of interest in them began in the early 2000s. During the last few decades, it is again becoming a popular belief that self-ligating brackets have an advantage over traditional ones. The commercial effect has undoubtedly been supported with clinical theories regarding not only the reduction of friction in the slot, but also shorter chair-side time or total treatment time. Other theses have mentioned the widening effect of the appliance, a lesser tendency for root resorption, a better environment for proper oral hygiene or acceptation of the patient. The aim of the article is to review the literature about self-ligating brackets, which will allow the reader to objectively verify their advantages.

Streszczenie

Zamki samoligaturujące nie są nowością w ortodoncji, ponowne zainteresowanie nimi zaczęło się jednak na początku lat 20. XX w. W ciągu ostatnich kilku dekad znów rozpowszechnił się pogląd, że systemy bezligaturowe mają przewagę nad zamkami tradycyjnymi. Rezultat komercyjny był niewątpliwie wspomagany teoriami klinicznymi dotyczącymi nie tylko zmniejszenia tarcia łuku w slocie, ale także skróconego czasu trwania wizyt lub samego leczenia. Inne tezy mówiły o poszerzającym działaniu aparatu, mniejszej tendencji do resorpcji korzeni, lepszych warunkach utrzymywania higieny jamy ustnej lub też większej akceptacji pacjenta. Celem pracy jest dokonanie przeglądu piśmiennictwa, który pozwoli na obiektywną weryfikację potencjalnych zalet systemów bezligaturowych.

Key words

self-ligating brackets, low-friction system

Słowa kluczowe

zamki samoligaturujące, zamki bezligaturowe, system małego tarcia

References (36)

  1. Chen S.S., Greenlee G.M., Kim J.E., Smith C.L., Huang G.J.: Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2010, 137, 726.e1–e18.
  2. Rinchuse D.J., Miles P.G.: Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2007, 132, 216–222.
  3. Harradine N.: The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Semin. Orthod. 2008, 14, 5–18.
  4. Megat Abdul Wahab R., Idris H., Yacob H., Zainal Ariffin S.H.: Comparison of selfand conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur. J. Orthod. 2011, Advance Access published April 8, 2011. [Epub ahead of print].
  5. Pandis N., Eliades T., Partowi S., Bourauel C.: Forces exerted by conventional and self-ligating brackets during simulated firstand second-order corrections. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2008, 133, 738–742.
  6. Kapur R., Sinha P.K., Nanda R.S.: Frictional resistance of the Damon SL bracket. J. Clin. Orthod. 1998, 32, 485–489.
  7. Damon D.H.: The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin. Orthod. Res. 1998, 1, 52–61.
  8. Franchi L., Baccetti T., Camporesi M., Giuntini V.: Forces released by nonconventional bracket or ligature systems during alignment of buccally displaced teeth. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009, 136, 316.e1–e6.
  9. Petersen A., Rosenstein S., Kim K.B., Israel H.: Force decay of elastomeric ligatures: influence on unloading force compared to self-ligation. Angle Orthod. 2009, 79, 934–938.
  10. Loftus B.P., Artun J., Nicholls J.I., Alonzo T.A., Stoner J.A.: Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1999, 116, 336–345.
  11. Scott P., DiBiase A.T., Sherriff M., Cobourne M.: Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2008, 134, 471–478.
  12. Miles P.G.: Self-ligating vs. conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure wit sliding mechanics. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2007, 132, 223–225.
  13. Pandis N., Polychronopoulou A., Eliades T.: Active or passive self-ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparative efficiency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2010, 137, 12.e1–e6.
  14. Harradine N.W.T.: Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J. Orthod. 2003, 30, 262–273.
  15. Baccetti T., Franchi L., Camporesi M., Defraia E.: Orthodontic forces released by low-friction versus conventional systems during alignment of apically or buccally malposed teeth. Eur. J. Orthod. 2011, 33, 50–54.
  16. Brauchli L.M., Senn C., Wichelhaus A.: Active and passive self-ligation – a myth? Angle Orthod. 2011, 81, 312–318.
  17. Henao S.P., Kusy R.P.: Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod. 2004, 74, 202–211.
  18. Voudouris J.C.: Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1997, 111, 119–140.
  19. Harradine N.W.: Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin. Orthod. Res. 2001, 4, 220–227.
  20. Fleming P.S., DiBiase A.T., Sarri G., Lee R.T.: Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009, 135, 597–602.
  21. Fleming P.S., Johal A.: Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010, 80, 575–584.
  22. Eberting J.J., Straja S.R., Tuncay O.C.: Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin. Orthod. Res. 2001, 4, 228–234.
  23. Proffit W.R., Fields H.W. Jr, Sarver D.M.: Zasady mechaniki w kontroli sił ortodontycznych. In: Ortodoncja Współczesna. Wyd. IV. Tom II. Eds.: Komorowska A. Elsevier Urban & Partner, Wrocław, 2010, 31–66.
  24. Miles P.G.: SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust. Orthod. J. 2005, 21, 123–127.
  25. Ong E., McCallum H., Griffin M.P., Ho C.: Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2010, 138, 138.e1–e7.
  26. 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. Dentofac. Orthop. 2007, 132, 208–215.
  27. Fleming P.S., DiBiase A.T., Sarri G., Lee R.T.: Mandibular arch dimensional changes with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009, 136, 340–347.
  28. Pandis N., Polychronopoulou A., Makou M., Eliades T.: Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur. J. Orthod. 2010, 32, 248–253.
  29. Pandis N., Nasika M., Polychronopoulou A., Eliades T.: External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2008, 134, 646–651.
  30. Pellegrini P., Sauerwein R., Finlayson T., McLeod J., Covell D.A. Jr, Maier T., Machida C.A.: Plaque retention by selfligating vs elastomeric orthodontic brackets: quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009, 135, 426.e1–e9.
  31. Pandis N., Vlachopoulos K., Polychronopoulou A., Madianos P., Eliades T.: Periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Orthod. Craniofac. Res. 2008, 11, 211–215.
  32. Fortini A., Lupoli M., Cacciafesta V.: A new low-friction ligation system. J. Clin. Orthod. 2005, 39, 464–471.
  33. Damon D.H.: The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J. Clin. Orthod. 1998, 32, 670–680.
  34. Harradine N.W., Birnie D.J.: The clinical use of Activa selfligating brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1996, 109, 319–328.
  35. Kusy R.P.: Orthodontic biomechanics: vistas from the top of a new century. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2000, 117, 589–591.
  36. Thorstenson G.A., Kusy R.P.: 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. Dentofac. Orthop. 2002, 122, 295–305.