Retrospective Analysis of Different Bracket Systems used in the Treatment of Patients with Anterior Crowding: A Longitudinal Comparative Study.

INTRODUCTION New design of brackets have been introduced in the field of orthodontics in the recent past, and one of such advancement is the self-ligating brackets. These brackets are said to have less friction, with a shorter period of treatment. Better patient acceptance and good treatment results are some of the other advantages offered by self-ligating brackets. Hence, we comparatively evaluated root resorption of anterior teeth by self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets in cases of severe anterior crowding in class I patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS The present study was carried out at the department of orthodontics in a dental institution and included 140 patients that presented with the chief complaint of Angle class I malocclusion with crowding of more than 6 mm in the anterior tooth region. Two groups were formed with 70 patients in each group. In one group self-ligating brackets were used, while in other group conventional brackets were used. Malmgren's method was sued for evaluating the root resorption score ranging from 0 to 4. All the results were analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software. Chi-square test, nonpaired t-test, and paired t-test were used to evaluate the level of significance. RESULTS The mean age of the patients in groups I and II was 13.92 and 13.81 years respectively. While comparing age of the patients and time duration of the treatment, no significant results were obtained. While comparing the root resorptions at various time intervals in groups I and II patients, significant results were obtained. While comparing the root resorptions in between groups I and II patients, no statistically significant results were obtained (p-value > 0.05). CONCLUSION Statistically similar amount of resorption is seen in patients in both the groups either on self-ligating brackets or on conventional preadjusted brackets during treatment of Angle class I patients with severe anterior crowding. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE In treating anterior crowding patients with Angle class I patients, choice of brackets has no effect on the amount of root resorption.

[1]  D. Garib,et al.  External root resorption with the self-ligating Damon system—a retrospective study , 2016, Progress in orthodontics.

[2]  A. Haq,et al.  Root resorption of self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets in severe anterior crowding Class I patients: a longitudinal retrospective study , 2015, BMC oral health.

[3]  M. Almeida,et al.  Efficiency of Mandibular Arch Alignment with Self-Ligating and Conventional Edgewise Appliances: A Dental Cast Study , 2012 .

[4]  P. Fleming,et al.  Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. , 2010, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[5]  Greg J. Huang,et al.  Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. , 2010, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[6]  N. Pandis,et al.  External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[7]  Paul Scott,et al.  Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  A. Kuijpers-Jagtman,et al.  Apical root resorption 6 months after initiation of fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. , 2005, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[9]  A. Ireland,et al.  Resistance to sliding with 3 types of elastomeric modules. , 2005, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[10]  D. Millett,et al.  Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. , 2004, European journal of orthodontics.

[11]  Catherine Klersy,et al.  Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[12]  N. W. T. Harradine,et al.  Self-ligating Brackets: Where are we now? , 2003, Journal of orthodontics.

[13]  Peter Rock,et al.  The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[14]  J. Berger,et al.  The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets. , 2001, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[15]  M. Sherriff,et al.  A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. , 1998, European journal of orthodontics.

[16]  B. Melsen,et al.  Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. , 1998, European journal of orthodontics.

[17]  M. Pharoah,et al.  A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with the edgewise and Speed appliances. , 1995, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[18]  P. Shivapuja,et al.  A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. , 1994, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[19]  N. Waters,et al.  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. , 1993, European journal of orthodontics.

[20]  M. Lundberg,et al.  Root resorption after orthodontic treatment of traumatized teeth. , 1982, American journal of orthodontics.

[21]  J. Stolzenberg.  The Russell attachment and its improved advantages , 1935 .

[22]  S. Gebeile-Chauty.  Are self-ligating brackets an advantageous alternative for non-extraction treatments? , 2014 .

[23]  T. Eliades,et al.  Orthodontic Materials Scientific And Clinical Aspects , 2006 .

[24]  L. Linge,et al.  Patient characteristics and treatment variables associated with apical root resorption during orthodontic treatment. , 1991, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.