An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate two different treatment systems with regard to incisor position, transverse dimension changes in maxillary arch, changes in maxillary molar inclinations, clinical periodontal parameters, and pain intensity in patients with a Class I malocclusion.

Materials and methods: Seventeen patients (with a mean age of 14.5 years) underwent orthodontic treatment with the Roth prescribed edgewise bracket systems after expanding the maxillary arch with a quad-helix appliance, and 16 patients (with a mean age of 14.8 years) underwent orthodontic treatment with the Damon 3MX bracket system. Each subject's lateral cephalometric and posteroanterior radiographs and dental casts were obtained at the beginning of the treatment and after debonding. In addition to these, the periodontal index and pain scores were taken.

Results: Cephalometric data showed that in both treatment systems, overjet value decreased and maxillary and mandibular incisors proclined. Posteroanterior measurements demonstrated a greater increase in the maxillary molar inclination in the Damon group. Significant increase of maxillary intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths was shown in both systems. Periodontal index and pain score changes between different observation periods were the same.

Conclusions: The conventional and Damon systems were found similar with regard to the incisor position, transverse dimension changes in maxillary arch, clinical periodontal parameters, and pain intensity. The only significant difference was that the Damon system inclined the maxillary molars more buccally than the conventional group.

Keywords: Damon; Edgewise; Maxillary arch expansion; Quad-helix.

Figure 1.

Arch dimension measurements on dental study casts. 1: intercanine width; 2: inter-first premolar width; 3: inter-second premolar width; 4: intermolar width.

Figure 2.

Lateral cephalometric dental angular and linear measurements. 1: U1-SN (°); 2: U1-FH (°); 3: U1-NA (°); 4: U1-NA (mm); 5: IMPA (°); 6: FMIA (°); 7: L1-NB (°); 8: L1-NB (mm); 9: overjet (mm); 10: overbite (mm).

Figure 3.

Posteroanterior cephalometric measurements. 1: UR6-ML (°); 2: UR6-ML (mm); 3: UL6-ML (°); 4: UL6-ML (mm); 5: JR-JL (mm); 6: UR6-UL6 (mm).

Figure 4.

Periodontal index score changes of the groups between different periods.

Figure 5.

Comparison of VAS score changes according to different observation periods.