Korean J Orthod.  2022 Nov;52(6):387-398. 10.4041/kjod22.009.

Clinical effects of different prescriptions on the inclination of maxillary and mandibular incisors by using passive self-ligating brackets

• Savoldi F
• Sangalli L
• Ghislanzoni LTH
• Dalessandri D
• Gu M
• Mandelli G
• Paganelli C

• KMID: 2536332
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod22.009

Abstract

Objective
Controlling the incisal inclination is fundamental in orthodontics. However, the relationship between the inclination prescription and its clinical outcome is not obvious, and the incisal inclination changes generated by different bracket prescriptions were investigated.
Methods
Twenty-eight nonextraction dental Class II patients (15 females, 13 males; mean age = 12.9) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were treated using passive self-ligating fixed appliances with three inclination prescriptions for maxillary incisors (high, standard, low), and two for mandibular incisors (standard, low). Clinical outcomes were compared among different prescriptions, and regression analysis was used to explain the effects of bracket prescriptions and to understand the prescription selection criteria (α = 0.05).
Results
For maxillary central incisors, low and high prescriptions were related to linguoversion (p = 0.046) and labioversion (p = 0.005), respectively, while standard prescription maintained the initial dental inclination. Maxillary lateral incisors did not show significant changes. For mandibular incisors, low prescription led to linguoversion (p = 0.005 for central incisors, p = 0.010 for lateral incisors), while standard prescription led to labioversion (p = 0.045 for central incisors, p = 0.005 for lateral incisors). The factors affecting inclination changes were the imposed change and selected prescription, while prescription selection was influenced by the initial dental inclination and initial intercanine distance.
Conclusions
The direction of correction of incisal inclination can be controlled by choosing a certain prescription, but the final inclination may show limited consistency with it. The amount of imposed inclination change was the most relevant predictor of the clinical outcome.

Keyword

Digital models; Tooth movement; Incisor; Orthodontic brackets

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Example of maxillary digital cast analysis, where incisors to second molars were included, and five points were recorded for each tooth (points are highlighted in green).

• 

  Figure 2 Comparison between initial inclination (Tin, full box) and final inclination (Tfin, striped box) of maxillary (A) and mandibular (B) incisors in relation to the inclination prescription. Tsel, selected inclination prescription; NS, not significant. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

• 

  Figure 3 Low (green), standard (blue), and high (red) inclination prescriptions for maxillary incisors. Correlation between the final inclination (Tfin) and initial inclination (Tin) (A). Correlation between the change in inclination (ΔT) and differential inclination applied (Tsel-Tin) (B). Tsel, selected inclination prescription.

• 

  Figure 4 Low (green) and standard (blue) inclination prescriptions for mandibular incisors. Correlation between the final inclination (Tfin) and initial inclination (Tin) (A). Correlation between the change in inclination (ΔT) and differential inclination applied (Tsel-Tin) (B). Tsel, selected inclination prescription.

Reference

References

1. Kilpeläinen PV, Phillips C, Tulloch JF. 1993; Anterior tooth position and motivation for early treatment. Angle Orthod. 63:171–4. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1993)063<0171:ATPAMF>2.0.CO;2. PMID: 8214784.

2. Matarese G, Isola G, Ramaglia L, Dalessandri D, Lucchese A, Alibrandi A, et al. 2016; Periodontal biotype: characteristic, prevalence and dimensions related to dental malocclusion. Minerva Stomatol. 65:231–8. PMID: 27035270. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84977663922&origin=inward.

3. Perillo L, Padricelli G, Isola G, Femiano F, Chiodini P, Matarese G. 2012; Class II malocclusion division 1: a new classification method by cephalometric analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 13:192–6. PMID: 22971255.

4. Perillo L, Isola G, Esercizio D, Iovane M, Triolo G, Matarese G. 2013; Differences in craniofacial characteristics in Southern Italian children from Naples: a retrospective study by cephalometric analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 14:195–8. PMID: 24295003.

5. Tweed CH. 1944-1945; Indications for the extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure. Am J Orthod Oral Surg. 42:22–45. DOI: 10.1016/s0096-6347(44)90038-4. PMID: 21024940. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0006529844&origin=inward.

6. Andrews LF. 1972; The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod. 62:296–309. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90268-0. PMID: 4505873. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0015400312&origin=inward.

7. Andrews LF. 1976; The straight-wire appliance, origin, controversy, commentary. J Clin Orthod. 10:99–114. PMID: 1074876. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0016922634&origin=inward.

8. Moesi B, Dyer F, Benson PE. 2013; Roth versus MBT: does bracket prescription have an effect on the subjective outcome of pre-adjusted edgewise treatment? Eur J Orthod. 35:236–43. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr126. PMID: 22051535. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84875731957&origin=inward.

9. Breckon J. 2009; The 20 principles of the Alexander discipline. Eur J Orthod. 31:213–8. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn120.

10. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. 2021. Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. Mosby;St. Louis: DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn120.

11. Ricketts RM. 1976; Bioprogressive therapy as an answer to orthodontic needs. Part II. Am J Orthod. 70:359–97. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(76)90111-1. PMID: 1067757. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0017142332&origin=inward.

12. Damon DH. 1998; The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod. 32:670–80. PMID: 10388398. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0032199846&origin=inward.

13. Savoldi F, Bonetti S, Dalessandri D, Mandelli G, Paganelli C. 2015; Incisal apical root resorption evaluation after low-friction orthodontic treatment using two-dimensional radiographic imaging and trigonometric correction. J Clin Diagn Res. 9:ZC70–4. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/14140.6841. PMID: 26676099. PMCID: PMC4668528. PMID: 8afb1ab45384426eb7c8628ed13d84ae. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84946550000&origin=inward.

14. Johnson E. 2013; Selecting custom torque prescriptions for the straight-wire appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 143(4 Suppl):S161–7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.09.003. PMID: 23540633. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84875730946&origin=inward.

15. Castro IO, Frazão Gribel B, Alencar AHG, Valladares-Neto J, Estrela C. 2018; Evaluation of crown inclination and angulation after orthodontic treatment using digital models: comparison to the prescription of the brackets used. J Orofac Orthop. 79:227–34. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-018-0136-2. PMID: 29644390. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85049735847&origin=inward.

16. Arreghini A, Lombardo L, Mollica F, Siciliani G. 2014; Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross section. Prog Orthod. 15:53. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0053-x. PMID: 25329505. PMCID: PMC4176837. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84994092836&origin=inward.

17. Gioka C, Eliades T. 2004; Materials-induced variation in the torque expression of preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 125:323–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.02.007. PMID: 15014409. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=1542327259&origin=inward.

18. Cattaneo PM, Salih RA, Melsen B. 2013; Labio-lingual root control of lower anterior teeth and canines obtained by active and passive self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod. 83:691–7. DOI: 10.2319/071212-575.1. PMID: 23249256. PMCID: PMC8754038. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84881049676&origin=inward.

19. Ren X, Li J, Zhao Y, Li H, Lei L. 2020; Torque expression by active and passive self-ligating brackets in patients with four premolar extractions: a retrospective study. Orthod Craniofac Res. 23:509–16. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12403. PMID: 32583548. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85087702814&origin=inward.

20. Huanca Ghislanzoni LT, Lineberger M, Cevidanes LH, Mapelli A, Sforza C, McNamara JA Jr. 2013; Evaluation of tip and torque on virtual study models: a validation study. Prog Orthod. 14:19. DOI: 10.1186/2196-1042-14-19. PMID: 24325839. PMCID: PMC4384932. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84884552089&origin=inward.

21. Jenkins DG, Quintana-Ascencio PF. 2020; A solution to minimum sample size for regressions. PLoS One. 15:e0229345. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229345. PMID: 32084211. PMCID: PMC7034864. PMID: d1d3b0b19caa48f4a01d88ce93281f6e. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85079750709&origin=inward.

22. Mandelli G. 2014. Integrated Straight Wire- pianificazione e controllo in 10 punti. Ediprima;Piacenza: PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0032199846&origin=inward.

23. Blacker D. Sadock VA, Sadock BJ, editors. 2005. Psychiatric rating scales. Kaplan & Sadock's comprehensive textbook of psychiatry. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins;Philadelphia: p. 929–55. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-440x(64)80019-5. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=58149442439&origin=inward.

24. Merrifield LL. 1994; Dimensions of the denture: back to basics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 106:535–42. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70077-X. PMID: 7977195. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=0028534664&origin=inward.

25. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. 2008; Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 134:470.e1–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.018. PMID: 18929262. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=53049108349&origin=inward.

26. Papageorgiou SN, Sifakakis I, Doulis I, Eliades T, Bourauel C. 2016; Torque efficiency of square and rectangular archwires into 0.018 and 0.022 in. conventional brackets. Prog Orthod. 17:5. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0118-0. PMID: 26780465. PMCID: PMC4715034. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85007451871&origin=inward.

27. Mittal M, Thiruvenkatachari B, Sandler PJ, Benson PE. 2015; A three-dimensional comparison of torque achieved with a preadjusted edgewise appliance using a Roth or MBT prescription. Angle Orthod. 85:292–7. DOI: 10.2319/122313-941. PMID: 24978676. PMCID: PMC8631874. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84924902795&origin=inward.

28. Kusy RP. 2005; Influence of force systems on archwire-bracket combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 127:333–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.07.037. PMID: 15775948. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=15244350566&origin=inward.

29. Piancino MG, Isola G, Merlo A, Dalessandri D, Debernardi C, Bracco P. 2012; Chewing pattern and muscular activation in open bite patients. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 22:273–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.12.003. PMID: 22236764. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=84857030884&origin=inward.

30. Savoldi F, Papoutsi A, Dianiskova S, Dalessandri D, Bonetti S, Tsoi JKH, et al. 2018; Resistance to sliding in orthodontics: misconception or method error? A systematic review and a proposal of a test protocol. Korean J Orthod. 48:268–80. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2018.48.4.268. PMID: 30003061. PMCID: PMC6041452. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85049888073&origin=inward.

31. Savoldi F, Visconti L, Dalessandri D, Bonetti S, Tsoi JKH, Matinlinna JP, et al. 2017; In vitro evaluation of the influence of velocity on sliding resistance of stainless steel arch wires in a self-ligating orthodontic bracket. Orthod Craniofac Res. 20:119–25. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12156. PMID: 28414874. PMID: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85017557905&origin=inward.