Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.4.168

Randomized controlled clinical trial of oral health-related quality of life in patients wearing conventional and self-ligating brackets  

Othman, Siti Adibah (Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya)
Mansor, Noorhanizar (Department of Paediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya)
Saub, Roslan (Department of Community Oral Health and Clinical Prevention, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.44, no.4, 2014 , pp. 168-176 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) of patients treated with conventional, active self-ligating (ASL), and passive self-ligating (PSL) brackets in different therapeutic phases. Methods: Sixty patients (mean age 18.3 years; 29 males and 31 females) requiring orthodontic treatment were randomly and equally assigned to receive conventional (Victory Series), ASL (In-Ovation R), or PSL (Damon 3MX) brackets. OHRQoL was measured with a self-administered modified 16-item Malaysian version of the Oral Health Impact Profile for immediate (soon after the visit) and late (just before the subsequent visit) assessments of the bonding and activation phases. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square tests. Results: The PSL and ASL groups showed more immediate and late impacts in the bonding phase, respectively; the conventional group was affected in both the assessments. The first activation phase had similar impacts in the groups. After the second activation, the conventional group showed more immediate impacts, whereas the PSL and ASL groups had more late impacts. The commonly affected domains were "physical disability," "functional limitation," "physical pain," and "psychological discomfort." No significant differences in the prevalence and severity of immediate and late impacts on OHRQoL of the patients were noted in any therapeutic phase. Conclusions: No bracket system seems to ensure superior OHRQoL. This information could be useful for explaining the therapeutic phases, especially the initial one, and selecting the optimal bracket system based on the patient's preference.
Keywords
Perception; Fixed appliances; Self-ligating bracket; Orthodontic treatment; Public health;
Citations & Related Records
Times Cited By KSCI : 1  (Citation Analysis)
연도 인용수 순위
1 Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005;21:123-7.
2 Tecco S, D'Attilio M, Tete S, Festa F. Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:380-4.   DOI
3 Fleming PS, Dibiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2009;79:46-50.   DOI
4 Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010;80:575-84.   DOI
5 Kohli SS, Kohli VS. Patient pain experience after placement of initial aligning archwire using active and passive self-ligating bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Orthodontics (Chic.) 2012;013:e58-65.
6 Liu Z, McGrath C, Hagg U. Associations between orthodontic treatment need and oral health-related quality of life among young adults: does it depend on how you assess them? Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2011;39:137-44.   DOI
7 Locker D, Quinonez C. Functional and psychosocial impacts of oral disorders in Canadian adults: a national population survey. J Can Dent Assoc 2009;75:521.
8 Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: assessment, analysis and interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd; 2000.
9 Major TW, Carey JP, Nobes DS, Major PW. Orthodontic bracket manufacturing tolerances and dimensional differences between select self-ligating brackets. J Dent Biomech 2010;2010:781321.
10 Krishnan V. Orthodontic pain: from causes to management-- a review. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:170-9.   DOI
11 Crawford NL, McCarthy C, Murphy TC, Benson PE. Physical properties of conventional and Super Slick elastomeric ligatures after intraoral use. Angle Orthod 2010;80:175-81.   DOI
12 Ngan P, Kess B, Wilson S. Perception of discomfort by patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:47-53.   DOI   ScienceOn
13 Jones M, Chan C. The pain and discomfort experienced during orthodontic treatment: a randomized controlled clinical trial of two initial aligning arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 102:373-81.   DOI
14 Zhang M, McGrath C, Hagg U. Changes in oral health-related quality of life during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:25-9.   DOI
15 Masood Y, Masood M, Zainul NN, Araby NB, Hussain SF, Newton T. Impact of malocclusion on oral health related quality of life in young people. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:25.   DOI
16 Rusanen J, Lahti S, Tolvanen M, Pirttiniemi P. Quality of life in patients with severe malocclusion before treatment. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:43-8.   DOI
17 Roscoe JT. Fundamental research statistic for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1975.
18 Bellot-Arcis C, Montiel-Company JM, Almerich-Silla JM. Psychosocial impact of malocclusion in Spanish adolescents. Korean J Orthod 2013;43:193-200.   DOI
19 Cunningham SJ, O'Brien C. Quality of life and orthodontics. Semin Orthod 2007;13:96-103.   DOI
20 O'Brien K, Kay L, Fox D, Mandall N. Assessing oral health outcomes for orthodontics--measuring health status and quality of life. Community Dent Health 1998;15:22-6.
21 Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod 1997;24:309-17.   DOI
22 Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:220-7.
23 Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:395-9.   DOI
24 Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:228-34.   DOI
25 Erdinc AM, Dincer B. Perception of pain during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:79-85.   DOI
26 Schmidt A, Ciesielski R, Orthuber W, Koos B. Survey of oral health-related quality of life among skeletal malocclusion patients following orthodontic treatment and orthognathic surgery. J Orofac Orthop 2013;74:287-94.   DOI
27 Khambay B, Millett D, McHugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:327-32.   DOI
28 Saub R, Locker D. The impact of oral conditions on the quality of life of the Malaysian adult population: preliminary results. Med J Malaysia 2006;61:438-46.
29 Cunningham SJ, Hunt NP, Feinmann C. Psychological aspects of orthognathic surgery: a review of the literature. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1995;10:159-72.
30 Saub R, Locker D, Allison P. Derivation and validation of the short version of the Malaysian Oral Health Impact Profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 2005;33:378-83.   DOI