The History and Development of Self-Ligating Brackets

Self-ligating brackets do not require an elastic or wire ligature, but have an inbuilt mechanism that can be opened and closed to secure the archwire. In the overwhelming majority of designs, this mechanism is a metal face to the bracket slot that is opened and closed with an instrument or fingertip. Brackets of this type have existed for a surprisingly long time in orthodontics—the Russell Lock edgewise attachment being described by Stolzenberg in 1935. Many designs have been patented, although only a minority have become commercially available. In addition, there are lingual self-ligation brackets, and in general terms, the same challenges and potential differences apply on the lingual surface. Specific comparison of some types of lingual self-ligating brackets can be found in the article by Silvia Geron in this issue. New designs have continued to appear, the Time bracket (Adenta GmbH, Gliching, Germany) becoming available in 1994, the Damon SL bracket ("A" Company, San Diego, CA) in 1996, 5,6 and the TwinLock bracket (Ormco Corp., Orange, CA) in 1998, being three designs from that decade. Since the turn of the century, the pace of development has greatly accelerated with the launch of at least 13 new brackets and rapidly increasing sales for such brackets. This article aims to outline the history and development of this type of bracket and to put the current situation in context. The generic advantages claimed for these brackets will be described. In addition, the problems encountered with various bracket types will be discussed to provide a summary of why, despite these claimed advantages, self-ligation has for so long and until so recently been a small part of orthodontics.

[1]  C. Forsberg,et al.  Ligature wires and elastomeric rings: two methods of ligation, and their association with microbial colonization of Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli. , 1991, European journal of orthodontics.

[2]  Damon Dh.  The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. , 1998 .

[3]  K. Selvig,et al.  Bacterial colonization associated with fixed orthodontic appliances. A scanning electron microscopy study. , 2001, European journal of orthodontics.

[4]  N W Harradine,et al.  The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets. , 1996, 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]  L Lorton,et al.  Force decay and deformation of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures. , 1997, 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. Harradine.  Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. , 2008, Clinical orthodontics and research.

[7]  D. Smith,et al.  Time savings with self-ligating brackets. , 1990, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[8]  A. Kuijpers-Jagtman,et al.  Magnitude of orthodontic forces and rate of bodily tooth movement. An experimental study. , 1996, 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]  Damon Dh.  The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. , 1998 .

[10]  C J Burstone,et al.  Force systems from an ideal arch--large deflection considerations. , 1989, The Angle orthodontist.

[11]  J L Berger,et al.  The SPEED appliance: a 14-year update on this unique self-ligating orthodontic mechanism. , 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.

[12]  S. Kaya,et al.  Archwire ligation techniques, microbial colonization, and periodontal status in orthodontically treated patients. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[13]  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.

[14]  C. Sadowsky,et al.  Efficacy of intraarch mechanics using differential moments for achieving anchorage control in extraction cases. , 1997, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

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

[16]  K Reitan,et al.  Some factors determining the evaluation of forces in orthodontics , 1957 .

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

[18]  R. Kusy,et al.  Effect of archwire size and material on the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry state. , 2002, 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]  S. Straja,et al.  Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. , 2001, Clinical orthodontics and research.