Korean J Orthod.  2015 Mar;45(2):89-94. 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.89.

Mandibular changes during initial alignment with SmartClip self-ligating and conventional brackets: A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial

• Celikoglu
• Bayram M
• Nur M
• Kilkis D

• KMID: 1787610
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.89

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To test the null hypothesis that SmartClip self-ligating brackets are more effective than conventional brackets for initial mandibular alignment and identify influential factors.
METHODS
Fifty patients were randomly allocated to two equal treatment groups by using an online randomization program: self-ligating group (SmartClip brackets) and conventional group (Gemini brackets). The archwire sequence was standardized. Changes in anterior irregularity index, intercanine width, and intermolar width were assessed on plaster models at 8th and 16th weeks. Changes in incisor position and inclination were assessed on lateral cephalometric radiographs at 16 weeks. Intragroup and intergroup comparisons were performed with paired t-test and Student's t-test, respectively. Multiple linear regression was performed to identify variables affecting improvement in anterior ambiguity.
RESULTS
Data of 46 patients were analyzed; those missing an appointment (n = 2) or showing bracket breakage (n = 2) were excluded. Incisor inclination (p < 0.05), intercanine width (p < 0.05), and intermolar width (p > 0.05) increased at 8 and 16 weeks in both the groups; no significant intergroup differences were noted (p > 0.05). Initial anterior irregularity index and intercanine width change were significantly associated with improvement in anterior irregularity (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
The null hypothesis was rejected. Bracket type has little effect on improvement in anterior ambiguity during initial mandibular alignment.

Keyword

Self-ligating brackets; Conventional brackets; Initial alignment

MeSH Terms

Humans
Incisor
Linear Models
Prospective Studies*
Random Allocation

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Flow chart of the study. SL, Self-ligating group; CL, conventional group.

Reference

1. 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.

2. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res. 1998; 1:52–61.

3. Harradine NW, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109:319–328.

4. 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.

5. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001; 4:220–227.

6. Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J. 2005; 21:123–127.

7. 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.

8. Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. A comparison of different ligation methods on friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130:666–670.

9. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20:283–291.

10. Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74:202–211.

11. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod. 1980; 78:593–609.

12. Kapila S, Angolkar PV, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS. Evaluation of friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98:117–126.

13. Braun S, Bluestein M, Moore BK, Benson G. Friction in perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 115:619–627.

14. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 136:340–347.

15. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135:597–602.

16. Fleming PS, Dibiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Pain experience during initial alignment with a selfligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79:46–50.

17. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137:738–742.

18. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140:e99–e105.

19. Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP, Ho C. Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138:138.e1–138.e7.

20. Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cevidanes LH, et al. Transversal maxillary dento-alveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self-ligating brackets: a randomized clinical trial using CBCT-scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011; 14:222–233.

21. Wahab RM, Idris H, Yacob H, Ariffin SH. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34:176–181.

22. Bertl MH, Onodera K, Čelar AG. A prospective randomized split-mouth study on pain experience during chairside archwire manipulation in self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83:292–297.

23. Fleming PS, Lee RT, Marinho V, Johal A. Comparison of maxillary arch dimensional changes with passive and active self-ligation and conventional brackets in the permanent dentition: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 144:185–193.

24. Johansson K, Lundström F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2012; 82:929–934.

25. Pandis N. Sample calculations for comparison of 2 means. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 141:519–521.

26. Celikoglu M, Akpinar S, Yavuz I. The pattern of malocclusion in a sample of orthodontic patients from Turkey. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2010; 15:e791–e796.

27. Little RM. The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod. 1975; 68:554–563.

28. Burke SP, Silveira AM, Goldsmith LJ, Yancey JM, Van Stewart A, Scarfe WC. A meta-analysis of mandibular intercanine width in treatment and postretention. Angle Orthod. 1998; 68:53–60.

29. Harradine N. Self-ligating brackets increase treatment efficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013; 143:10–18. 11–19.

30. Reddy VB, Kumar TA, Prasad M, Nuvvula S, Patil RG, Reddy PK. A comparative in-vivo evaluation of the alignment efficiency of 5 ligation methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Eur J Dent. 2014; 8:23–31.