Comparison in self ligating bracket and conventional bracket in orthodontic treatment: A systematic review
Article Sidebar
Published:
Oct 31, 2018
Keywords:
Keyword :(orthodontic) and (self ligating bracket or self-ligating or self ligate appliance) and (conventional bracket or conventional appliance) and (friction or efficiency or canine retraction or treatment time or space closure or discomfort or pain) and (clinic*)
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction : Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics has been use over the last 30 years. These systems have been the topic of several studies with good evidence making it likely to evaluate their efficacy and efficiency compared to conventional brackets. In this systematic review, we evaluate the differences between treatment efficiency, changes in transverse dimension, rate of canine retraction, treatment time and pain or discomfort in orthodontics.
Methods : Electronic databases (Pubmed, Cochrane Library and ISI Web of Science) were investigated without language restriction. The related orthodontic journals and reference lists were proved for all eligible studies. Two article reviewers independently retrieved the data and evaluated the quality of the primary studies.
Results : A total of 132 articles were extracted in the initial search. However, only 23 articles met the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of treatment efficiency, changes in transverse dimension, rate of canine retraction, treatment time and pain or discomfort in orthodontics between two systems of bracket were clinically similar.
Conclusions : Based on existing evidence, self-ligating bracket could be proven no superior benefit than conventional bracket. No clinical approval can be made concerning the type of bracket systems.
Article Details
How to Cite
1.
Tantidhnazet S, Leehathorn P, Rattanasumawong S, Santiwong P. Comparison in self ligating bracket and conventional bracket in orthodontic treatment: A systematic review. M Dent J [Internet]. 2018 Oct. 31 [cited 2024 Apr. 23];38(3):213-28. Available from: https://he02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/mdentjournal/article/view/135893
Section
Review articles
References
1. Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K. Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Australian Orthodontic Journal. 2008;24(2):102-9.
2. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 (TM) vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthodontist. 2006;76(3):480-5.
3. Atik E, Ciger S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients. The Angle orthodontist. 2014;84(4):615-22.
4. Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a prospective clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2006;9(4):193-8.
5. Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: Do they deliver what they claim? Australian dental journal. 2009;54(1):9-11.
6. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. European journal of orthodontics. 2010;32(3):248-53.
7. Scott P, DiBiase A, Sherriff M, Cobourne M. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics [Internet]. 2008; 134(4):[470.e1-8 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/435/CN-00651435/frame.html.
8. Wahab RM, Idris H, Yacob H, Ariffin SH. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. European journal of orthodontics. 2012;34(2):176-81.
9. Johansson K, Lundstrom F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: a prospective randomized clinical trial. The Angle orthodontist. 2012;82(5):929-34.
10. Songra G, Clover M, Atack N, Ewings P, Sherriff M, Sandy J, et al. Comparative assessment of alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: a single-center randomized controlled trial. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics [Internet]. 2014; 145(5):[569-78 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/064/CN-00996064/frame.html.
11. Anand M, Turpin DL, Jumani KS, Spiekerman CF, Huang GJ. Retrospective investigation of the effects and efficiency of self-ligating and conventional brackets. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2015;148(1):67-75.
12. O'Dywer L, Littlewood SJ, Rahman S, Spencer RJ, Barber SK, Russell JS. A multi-center randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 1: Treatment efficiency. The Angle orthodontist. 2016;86(1):142-8.
13. Celikoglu M, Bayram M, Nur M, Kilkis D. Mandibular changes during initial alignment with SmartClip self-ligating and conventional brackets: A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Korean journal of orthodontics. 2015;45(2):89-94.
14. Burrow S. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle orthodontist [Internet]. 2010; 80(4):[438-45 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/530/CN-00751530/frame.html.
15. Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM, Weissheimer A, Allgayer S. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets A randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthodontist. 2011;81(2):292-7.
16. Wahab RMA, Idris H, Yacob H, Ariffin SHZ. Canine Retraction: A Randomised Clinical Trial Comparing Damon (TM) 3 Self-Ligating with Conventional Ligating Brackets. Sains Malaysiana. 2013;42(2):251-5.
17. Monini AD, Gandini LG, Martins RP, Vianna AP. Canine retraction and anchorage loss Self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study. Angle Orthodontist. 2014;84(5):846-52.
18. 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. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2007;132(2):208-15.
19. Fleming P, DiBiase A, Lee R. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics [Internet]. 2010; 137(6):[738-42 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/510/CN-00749510/frame.html.
20. DiBiase A, Nasr I, Scott P, Cobourne M. Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics [Internet]. 2011; 139(2):[e111-6 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/248/CN-00778248/frame.html.
21. Machibya FM, Bao XF, Zhao LH, Hu M. Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthodontist. 2013;83(2):280-5.
22. Juneja P, Shivaprakash G, Chopra SS, Kambalyal PB. Comparative evaluation of anchorage loss between self-ligating appliance and Conventional pre-adjusted edgewise appliance using sliding mechanics - A retrospective study. Medical journal, Armed Forces India. 2015;71(Suppl 2):S362-8.
23. Scott P, Sherriff M, Dibiase A, Cobourne M. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: a randomized clinical trial. European journal of orthodontics [Internet]. 2008; 30(3):[227-32 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/854/CN-00647854/frame.html.
24. Fleming P, Dibiase A, Sarri G, Lee R. Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle orthodontist [Internet]. 2009; 79(1):[46-50 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/817/CN-00686817/frame.html.
25. Rahman S, Spencer RJ, Littlewood SJ, O'Dywer L, Barber SK, Russell JS. A multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 2: Pain perception. The Angle orthodontist. 2016;86(1):149-56.
2. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 (TM) vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthodontist. 2006;76(3):480-5.
3. Atik E, Ciger S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients. The Angle orthodontist. 2014;84(4):615-22.
4. Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a prospective clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2006;9(4):193-8.
5. Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: Do they deliver what they claim? Australian dental journal. 2009;54(1):9-11.
6. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. European journal of orthodontics. 2010;32(3):248-53.
7. Scott P, DiBiase A, Sherriff M, Cobourne M. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics [Internet]. 2008; 134(4):[470.e1-8 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/435/CN-00651435/frame.html.
8. Wahab RM, Idris H, Yacob H, Ariffin SH. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. European journal of orthodontics. 2012;34(2):176-81.
9. Johansson K, Lundstrom F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: a prospective randomized clinical trial. The Angle orthodontist. 2012;82(5):929-34.
10. Songra G, Clover M, Atack N, Ewings P, Sherriff M, Sandy J, et al. Comparative assessment of alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: a single-center randomized controlled trial. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics [Internet]. 2014; 145(5):[569-78 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/064/CN-00996064/frame.html.
11. Anand M, Turpin DL, Jumani KS, Spiekerman CF, Huang GJ. Retrospective investigation of the effects and efficiency of self-ligating and conventional brackets. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2015;148(1):67-75.
12. O'Dywer L, Littlewood SJ, Rahman S, Spencer RJ, Barber SK, Russell JS. A multi-center randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 1: Treatment efficiency. The Angle orthodontist. 2016;86(1):142-8.
13. Celikoglu M, Bayram M, Nur M, Kilkis D. Mandibular changes during initial alignment with SmartClip self-ligating and conventional brackets: A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Korean journal of orthodontics. 2015;45(2):89-94.
14. Burrow S. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle orthodontist [Internet]. 2010; 80(4):[438-45 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/530/CN-00751530/frame.html.
15. Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM, Weissheimer A, Allgayer S. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets A randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthodontist. 2011;81(2):292-7.
16. Wahab RMA, Idris H, Yacob H, Ariffin SHZ. Canine Retraction: A Randomised Clinical Trial Comparing Damon (TM) 3 Self-Ligating with Conventional Ligating Brackets. Sains Malaysiana. 2013;42(2):251-5.
17. Monini AD, Gandini LG, Martins RP, Vianna AP. Canine retraction and anchorage loss Self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study. Angle Orthodontist. 2014;84(5):846-52.
18. 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. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics. 2007;132(2):208-15.
19. Fleming P, DiBiase A, Lee R. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics [Internet]. 2010; 137(6):[738-42 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/510/CN-00749510/frame.html.
20. DiBiase A, Nasr I, Scott P, Cobourne M. Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics [Internet]. 2011; 139(2):[e111-6 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/248/CN-00778248/frame.html.
21. Machibya FM, Bao XF, Zhao LH, Hu M. Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthodontist. 2013;83(2):280-5.
22. Juneja P, Shivaprakash G, Chopra SS, Kambalyal PB. Comparative evaluation of anchorage loss between self-ligating appliance and Conventional pre-adjusted edgewise appliance using sliding mechanics - A retrospective study. Medical journal, Armed Forces India. 2015;71(Suppl 2):S362-8.
23. Scott P, Sherriff M, Dibiase A, Cobourne M. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: a randomized clinical trial. European journal of orthodontics [Internet]. 2008; 30(3):[227-32 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/854/CN-00647854/frame.html.
24. Fleming P, Dibiase A, Sarri G, Lee R. Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle orthodontist [Internet]. 2009; 79(1):[46-50 pp.]. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clcentral/articles/817/CN-00686817/frame.html.
25. Rahman S, Spencer RJ, Littlewood SJ, O'Dywer L, Barber SK, Russell JS. A multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 2: Pain perception. The Angle orthodontist. 2016;86(1):149-56.