Journals / 7tepe Klinik / 2019 / Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2

An assessment of short-term effects of two different bracket systems in mandibular anterior crowding

Alt çene ön bölge çapraşıklığa sahip olgularda iki farklı braket sisteminin kısa dönem etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi

Pages
152–158
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: There was no statistically difference in amount of resolution crowding, changes in dental width and depth measurements, and pain experience by the patient during the treatment process between the two brackets systems.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: In-ovation (self-ligating) and synergy (low friction) brackets are compared with each other’s effectiveness and advantages, the pain experienced during the treatment process by the patient, the effects on dental widths, the duration of the arch wire change in the treatment of mandibular anterior crowding.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Method: This study was performed on 32 patients with mandibular anterior crowding who were referred to the Orthodontics Department of Ordu University Dental Faculty.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: There was no statistically difference in amount of resolution crowding, changes in dental width and depth measurements, and pain experience by the patient during the treatment process between the two brackets systems.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: In-ovation (self-ligating) and synergy (low friction) brackets are compared with each other’s effectiveness and advantages, the pain experienced during the treatment process by the patient, the effects on dental widths, the duration of the arch wire change in the treatment of mandibular anterior crowding. Materials and Method: This study was performed on 32 patients with mandibular anterior crowding who were referred to the Orthodontics Department of Ordu University Dental Faculty. Patients randomly were divided into 2 groups. 16 patients were treated with In-ovation brackets (mean age 16±1.41 years) and 16 patients were treated with Synergy brackets (mean age 15.45±2.02 years). At the beginning of the treatment and 16 weeks after the treatment was started, dental cast models of the lower jaw were obtained from all patients and intercanine, interpremolar, intermolar widths, canine, premolars, molar depths were measured and hayes-nance analysis was made on the models. The pain experienced during the leveling was measured with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) by the patients. The duration of the arch wire change was compared for the evaluation of the chair time. Independent t test was used in the comparison between the groups, and Friedman test was used in the intra-group repeated comparison. Results: No difference was found between the groups when intercanine, interpremolar, intermolar width and canine, premolar, molar depth measurements, hayes-nance analysis, VAS values were compared. The duration of the arch wire change was found statistically significantly more in Synergy group than In-ovation group. Conclusion: There was no statistically difference in amount of resolution crowding, changes in dental width and depth measurements, and pain experience by the patient during the treatment process between the two brackets systems.

Özet

Amaç: In-Ovation (self-ligating) ve Synergy (low friction) braketlerin mandibula ön bölge çapraşıklığın tedavi edilmesinde birbirlerine göre etkinliklerinin ve üstünlüklerinin, hastanın tedavi sürecinde hissettiği ağrının, dişsel genişlikler üzerine etkilerinin ve ark teli değişimi sırasında geçen sürenin karşılaştırılarak değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma, Ordu Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı’na başvurmuş mandibula anterior çapraşıklığı olan 32 hasta üzerinde yapılmıştır. Hastalar rastgele 2 gruba ayrılmıştır. Birinci gruptaki 16 hastanın (yaş ort. 16±1,41 yıl) tedavisi In-ovation, diğer gruptaki 16 hastanın (yaş ort. 15,45±2,02 yıl) tedavisi ise Synergy braketlerle yapılmıştır. Tedavi başında ve tedavi başladıktan 16 hafta sonra bütün hastalardan alt çene dental alçı modeller elde edilmiş ve modeller üzerinde interkanin, interpremolar, intermolar genişlikler, kanin, premolar, molar derinlikler ölçülmüş ve hayes-nance analizi yapılmıştır. Hastaların seviyeleme sırasındaki hissettikleri ağrı Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) yardımı ile ölçülmüştür. Hasta başında geçen süreyi değerlendirmek için tel değiştirme süreleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Gruplar arası karşılaştırmada bağımsız t testi, grup içi tekrarlı karşılaştırmalarda ise Friedman testi kullanılmıştır Bulgular: Her 2 braket interkanin, interpremolar, intermolar genişlik ve kanin, premolar, molar derinlik ölçümleri, hayes-nance analizi, VAS değerleri karşılaştırıldığında gruplar arasında bir farklılık bulunamamıştır. Synergy grupta ark teli değişimi sırasında geçen sürenin İnovation ile tedavi edilen gruba göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde daha fazla olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Her iki braket sisteminin çapraşıklığı çözme, dental genişlik ve derinlik ölçümlerindeki değişimler ve hastanın tedavi sürecinde hissettiği ağrı açısından birbirlerine üstünlükleri bulunamamıştır. Bütün bu bilgiler ışığında, low friction (Synergy) braketlerin, self ligating (In-ovation) braketlere alternatif tedavi seçeneği olarak kullanılabileceği söylenebilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BENKLİ, Y. A., BÜYÜK, S. K., KOŞGİN, S. (2019). An assessment of short-term effects of two different bracket systems in mandibular anterior crowding. 7tepe Klinik, Cilt: 15 - Sayı: 2, 152–158. https://ajindex.com/articles/143774

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007; 131: 395-399
  2. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clinical orthodontics and research 2001; 4: 228-234
  3. Badawi M, Toogood RW, Carey JP, Heo G, Major PW. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2008; 133: 721-728
  4. Morina E, Eliades T, Pandis N, Jager A, Bourauel C. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. The European Journal of Orthodontics 2008; 30:233-238
  5. Montasser MA, El-Bialy T, Keilig L, Reimann S, Jäger A. Force levels in complex tooth alignment with conventional and self-ligating brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2013; 143: 507-514
  6. Montasser MA, Keilig L, Bourauel C. An in vitro study into the efficacy of complex tooth alignment with conventional and self‐ligating brackets. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 2015; 18: 33-42
  7. Atik E, Ciğer S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients. Angle Orthodontist 2014; 84: 615-622
  8. 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 2007; 132: 208-215
  9. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. The European Journal of Orthodontics 2009; 32: 248-253
  10. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2009; 136: 340-347
  11. Jones M, Chan C. The pain and discomfort experienced during orthodntic treatment: A randomized controlled clinical trial of two intial aligning arch wires. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1992; 102: 373-381
  12. Polat O, Karaman AI. Pain control during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. The Angle Orthodontist 2005; 75: 214-219
  13. Abdelrahm