대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

  • 제52권6호
  • /
  • Pages.387-398
  • /
  • 2022
  • /
  • 2234-7518(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-372X(eISSN)
대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

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

  • Savoldi, Fabio (Division of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong) ;
  • Sangalli, Linda (Division of Orofacial Pain, College of Dentistry, University of Kentucky) ;
  • Ghislanzoni, Luis T. Huanca (Department of Orthodontics, University of Geneva) ;
  • Dalessandri, Domenico (Orthodontics, Dental School, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia) ;
  • Gu, Min (Division of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong) ;
  • Mandelli, Gualtiero (Orthodontics, Dental School, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia) ;
  • Paganelli, Corrado (Orthodontics, Dental School, Department of Medical and Surgical Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, University of Brescia)
  • 투고 : 2022.01.13
  • 심사 : 2022.05.25
  • 발행 : 2022.11.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

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 non-extraction 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.

키워드

과제정보

The authors wish to thank Dr. Lucia Amedoro for the support in the data collection.

참고문헌

  1. Kilpelainen PV, Phillips C, Tulloch JF. Anterior tooth position and motivation for early treatment. Angle Orthod 1993;63:171-4.
  2. Matarese G, Isola G, Ramaglia L, Dalessandri D, Lucchese A, Alibrandi A, et al. Periodontal biotype: characteristic, prevalence and dimensions related to dental malocclusion. Minerva Stomatol 2016;65:231-8.
  3. Perillo L, Padricelli G, Isola G, Femiano F, Chiodini P, Matarese G. Class II malocclusion division 1: a new classification method by cephalometric analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2012;13:192-6.
  4. Perillo L, Isola G, Esercizio D, Iovane M, Triolo G, Matarese G. Differences in craniofacial characteristics in Southern Italian children from Naples: a retrospective study by cephalometric analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2013;14:195-8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-013-0074-z
  5. Tweed CH. Indications for the extraction of teeth in orthodontic procedure. Am J Orthod Oral Surg 1944-1945;42:22-45.
  6. Andrews LF. The six keys to normal occlusion. Am J Orthod 1972;62:296-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(72)90268-0
  7. Andrews LF. The straight-wire appliance, origin, controversy, commentary. J Clin Orthod 1976;10:99-114.
  8. Moesi B, Dyer F, Benson PE. Roth versus MBT: does bracket prescription have an effect on the subjective outcome of pre-adjusted edgewise treatment? Eur J Orthod 2013;35:236-43. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr126
  9. Breckon J. The 20 principles of the Alexander discipline. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:213-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn120
  10. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. St. Louis: Mosby; 2021.
  11. Ricketts RM. Bioprogressive therapy as an answer to orthodontic needs. Part II. Am J Orthod 1976; 70:359-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90111-1
  12. Damon DH. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:670-80.
  13. Savoldi F, Bonetti S, Dalessandri D, Mandelli G, Paganelli C. Incisal apical root resorption evaluation after low-friction orthodontic treatment using twodimensional radiographic imaging and trigonometric correction. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:ZC70-4.
  14. Johnson E. Selecting custom torque prescriptions for the straight-wire appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143(4 Suppl):S161-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.09.003
  15. Castro IO, Frazao Gribel B, Alencar AHG, ValladaresNeto J, Estrela C. Evaluation of crown inclination and angulation after orthodontic treatment using digital models: comparison to the prescription of the brackets used. J Orofac Orthop 2018;79:227-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-018-0136-2
  16. Arreghini A, Lombardo L, Mollica F, Siciliani G. Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross section. Prog Orthod 2014;15:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0053-x
  17. Gioka C, Eliades T. Materials-induced variation in the torque expression of preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:323-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.02.007
  18. Cattaneo PM, Salih RA, Melsen B. Labio-lingual root control of lower anterior teeth and canines obtained by active and passive self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod 2013;83:691-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/071212-575.1
  19. Ren X, Li J, Zhao Y, Li H, Lei L. Torque expression by active and passive self-ligating brackets in patients with four premolar extractions: a retrospective study. Orthod Craniofac Res 2020;23:509-16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12403
  20. Huanca Ghislanzoni LT, Lineberger M, Cevidanes LH, Mapelli A, Sforza C, McNamara JA Jr. Evaluation of tip and torque on virtual study models: a validation study. Prog Orthod 2013;14:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-19
  21. Jenkins DG, Quintana-Ascencio PF. A solution to minimum sample size for regressions. PLoS One 2020;15:e0229345. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229345
  22. Mandelli G. Integrated Straight Wire-pianificazione e controllo in 10 punti. Piacenza: Ediprima; 2014.
  23. Blacker D. Psychiatric rating scales. In: Sadock VA, Sadock BJ, eds. Kaplan & Sadock's comprehensive textbook of psychiatry. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p. 929-55.
  24. Merrifield LL. Dimensions of the denture: back to basics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:535-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70077-X
  25. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:470.e1-8.
  26. Papageorgiou SN, Sifakakis I, Doulis I, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Torque efficiency of square and rectangular archwires into 0.018 and 0.022 in. conventional brackets. Prog Orthod 2016;17:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-016-0118-0
  27. Mittal M, Thiruvenkatachari B, Sandler PJ, Benson PE. A three-dimensional comparison of torque achieved with a preadjusted edgewise appliance using a Roth or MBT prescription. Angle Orthod 2015;85:292-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/122313-941
  28. Kusy RP. Influence of force systems on archwirebracket combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:333-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.07.037
  29. Piancino MG, Isola G, Merlo A, Dalessandri D, Debernardi C, Bracco P. Chewing pattern and muscular activation in open bite patients. J Electromyogr Kinesiol 2012;22:273-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelekin.2011.12.003
  30. Savoldi F, Papoutsi A, Dianiskova S, Dalessandri D, Bonetti S, Tsoi JKH, et al. Resistance to sliding in orthodontics: misconception or method error? A systematic review and a proposal of a test protocol. Korean J Orthod 2018;48:268-80. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2018.48.4.268
  31. Savoldi F, Visconti L, Dalessandri D, Bonetti S, Tsoi JKH, Matinlinna JP, et al. 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 2017;20:119-25.