Iranian Journal of Orthodontics

Published by: Kowsar

Possible Advantages of Self-Ligating Brackets: From Claims to Evidence, a Literature Review

Homa Farhadifard 1 , Mohammad Ali Keshvad 2 , Aryan Hesamarefi 2 and Elahe Soltan Mohammadi 3 , *
Authors Information
1 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry , Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran
2 Department of Orthodontics, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Qom University of Medical Sciences, Qom, Iran
Article information
  • Iranian Journal of Orthodontics: March 31, 2019, 14 (1); e90579
  • Published Online: March 28, 2019
  • Article Type: Review Article
  • Received: February 12, 2019
  • Accepted: March 6, 2019
  • DOI: 10.5812/ijo.90579

To Cite: Farhadifard H, Keshvad M A, Hesamarefi A, Soltan Mohammadi E. Possible Advantages of Self-Ligating Brackets: From Claims to Evidence, a Literature Review, Iran J Ortho. 2019 ; 14(1):e90579. doi: 10.5812/ijo.90579.

Abstract
Copyright © 2019, Iranian Journal of Orthodontics. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits copy and redistribute the material just in noncommercial usages, provided the original work is properly cited.
1. Context
2. Evidence Acquisition
3. Results
4. Conclusions
Footnotes
References
  • 1. Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El-Bialy TH, Flores-Mir C. Frictional resistance in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):592-601. doi: 10.2319/060208-288.1. [PubMed: 19413397].
  • 2. Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. Int J Orthod Dent Child. 1935;21(9):837-40. doi: 10.1016/s0097-0522(35)90368-9.
  • 3. Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(6):726 e1-726 e18. discussion 726-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.11.009. [PubMed: 20685517].
  • 4. Prettyman C, Best AM, Lindauer SJ, Tufekci E. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets as perceived by orthodontists. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(6):1060-6. doi: 10.2319/101311-640.1. [PubMed: 22409395].
  • 5. Johansson K, Lundstrom F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: A prospective randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(5):929-34. doi: 10.2319/101911-653.1. [PubMed: 22397386].
  • 6. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(3):283-91. doi: 10.1093/ejo/20.3.283. [PubMed: 9699406].
  • 7. Proffit WR. Contemporary orthodontics. 3rd ed. Louis, Mo: Mosby; 2000. p. 345-6.
  • 8. Araujo RC, Bichara LM, Araujo AM, Normando D. Debris and friction of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets after clinical use. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(4):673-7. doi: 10.2319/012914-80.1. [PubMed: 25251040].
  • 9. Harradine N. Self-ligating brackets increase treatment efficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(1):10-8. 11-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.011. [PubMed: 23273355].
  • 10. Thapa B, Wu LP. Self-ligating brackets in perspective of friction: A Review. Orthod J Nepal. 2013;3(2):40-3.
  • 11. Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: Present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(2):216-22. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.018. [PubMed: 17693372].
  • 12. Pillai AR, Gangadharan A, Kumar S, Shah A. Comparison of the frictional resistance between archwire and different bracket system: An in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2014;6(Suppl 1):S150-5. doi: 10.4103/0975-7406.137429. [PubMed: 25210359]. [PubMed Central: PMC4157255].
  • 13. Leite VV, Lopes MB, Gonini Junior A, Almeida MR, Moura SK, Almeida RR. Comparison of frictional resistance between self-ligating and conventional brackets tied with elastomeric and metal ligature in orthodontic archwires. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19(3):114-9. doi: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.3.114-119.oar. [PubMed: 25162575]. [PubMed Central: PMC4296630].
  • 14. Jakob SR, Matheus D, Jimenez-Pellegrin MC, Turssi CP, Amaral FL. Comparative study of friction between metallic and conventional interactive self-ligating brackets in different alignment conditions. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19(3):82-9. doi: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.3.082-089.oar. [PubMed: 25162570]. [PubMed Central: PMC4296631].
  • 15. Kumar S, Singh S, Hamsa PRR, Ahmed S, Prasanthma , Bhatnagar A, et al. Evaluation of friction in orthodontics using various brackets and archwire combinations-an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(5):ZC33-6. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/7990.4364. [PubMed: 24995241]. [PubMed Central: PMC4080062].
  • 16. Pasha A, Vishwakarma S, Narayan A, Vinay K, Shetty SV, Roy PP. Comparison of frictional forces generated by a new ceramic bracket with the conventional brackets using unconventional and conventional ligation system and the self-ligating brackets: An in vitro study. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(9):108-13. [PubMed: 26435628]. [PubMed Central: PMC4589702].
  • 17. Ben Rejeb Jdir S, Tobji S, Turki W, Dallel I, Khedher N, Ben Amor A. [Brackets and friction in orthodontics: experimental study]. Orthod Fr. 2015;86(3):255-64. French. doi: 10.1051/orthodfr/2015026. [PubMed: 26370596].
  • 18. Monteiro MR, Silva LE, Elias CN, Vilella Ode V. Frictional resistance of self-ligating versus conventional brackets in different bracket-archwire-angle combinations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014;22(3):228-34. doi: 10.1590/1678-775720130665. [PubMed: 25025564]. [PubMed Central: PMC4072274].
  • 19. Vinay K, Venkatesh MJ, Nayak RS, Pasha A, Rajesh M, Kumar P. A comparative study to evaluate the effects of ligation methods on friction in sliding mechanics using 0.022" slot brackets in dry state: An In-vitro study. J Int Oral Health. 2014;6(2):76-83. [PubMed: 24876706]. [PubMed Central: PMC4037790].
  • 20. Pliska BT, Beyer JP, Larson BE. A comparison of resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets under an increasing applied moment. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(5):794-9. doi: 10.2319/111510-666.1. [PubMed: 21568646].
  • 21. Saporito I, Butti AC, Salvato A, Biagi R. A "typodont" study of rate of orthodontic space closure: Self-ligating systems vs. conventional systems. Minerva Stomatol. 2011;60(11-12):555-65. [PubMed: 22210459].
  • 22. Karim Soltani M, Golfeshan F, Alizadeh Y, Mehrzad J. Resistance to sliding in clear and metallic damon 3 and conventional edgewise brackets: An in vitro study. J Dent (Shiraz). 2015;16(1 Suppl):15-20. [PubMed: 26106630]. [PubMed Central: PMC4476125].
  • 23. Muguruma T, Iijima M, Brantley WA, Ahluwalia KS, Kohda N, Mizoguchi I. Effects of third-order torque on frictional force of self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(6):1054-61. doi: 10.2319/111913-845.1. [PubMed: 24738791].
  • 24. Huang TH, Luk HS, Hsu YC, Kao CT. An in vitro comparison of the frictional forces between archwires and self-ligating brackets of passive and active types. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(5):625-32. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr065. [PubMed: 21765175].
  • 25. Oliver CL, Daskalogiannakis J, Tompson BD. Archwire depth is a significant parameter in the frictional resistance of active and interactive, but not passive, self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(6):1036-44. doi: 10.2319/122810-751.1. [PubMed: 21699367].
  • 26. Heo W, Baek SH. Friction properties according to vertical and horizontal tooth displacement and bracket type during initial leveling and alignment. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(4):653-61. doi: 10.2319/072310-431.1. [PubMed: 21306223].
  • 27. Baccetti T, Franchi L, Camporesi M, Defraia E, Barbato E. Forces produced by different nonconventional bracket or ligature systems during alignment of apically displaced teeth. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):533-9. doi: 10.2319/050508-249.1. [PubMed: 19413392].
  • 28. Celar A, Schedlberger M, Dorfler P, Bertl M. Systematic review on self-ligating vs. conventional brackets: Initial pain, number of visits, treatment time. J Orofac Orthop. 2013;74(1):40-51. doi: 10.1007/s00056-012-0116-x. [PubMed: 23299650].
  • 29. Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(3):575-84. doi: 10.2319/081009-454.1. [PubMed: 20050755].
  • 30. Othman SA, Mansor N, Saub R. Randomized controlled clinical trial of oral health-related quality of life in patients wearing conventional and self-ligating brackets. Korean J Orthod. 2014;44(4):168-76. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.4.168. [PubMed: 25133131]. [PubMed Central: PMC4130912].
  • 31. Zhou Y, Zheng M, Lin J, Wang Y, Ni ZY. Self-ligating brackets and their impact on oral health-related quality of life in Chinese adolescence patients: A longitudinal prospective study. ScientificWorldJournal. 2014;2014:352031. doi: 10.1155/2014/352031. [PubMed: 25202720]. [PubMed Central: PMC4151365].
  • 32. Bertl MH, Onodera K, Celar AG. A prospective randomized split-mouth study on pain experience during chairside archwire manipulation in self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(2):292-7. doi: 10.2319/042312-338.1. [PubMed: 22827479].
  • 33. 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. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(1):149-56. doi: 10.2319/112414-838.1. [PubMed: 25811246].
  • 34. Scott P, Sherriff M, Dibiase AT, Cobourne MT. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30(3):227-32. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjm131. [PubMed: 18339656].
  • 35. 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;13(1):e58-65. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.024. [PubMed: 22567655].
  • 36. Songra G, Clover M, Atack NE, Ewings P, Sherriff M, Sandy JR, 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. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(5):569-78. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.024. [PubMed: 24785921].
  • 37. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: A single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140(3):e99-e105. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.019. [PubMed: 21889063].
  • 38. 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 J Orthod. 2015;45(2):89-94. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.89. [PubMed: 25798415]. [PubMed Central: PMC4367136].
  • 39. Wahab RM, Idris H, Yacob H, Ariffin SH. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(2):176-81. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq179. [PubMed: 21478298].
  • 40. Paduano S, Cioffi I, Iodice G, Rapuano A, Silva R. Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems. Prog Orthod. 2008;9(2):74-80. [PubMed: 19350061].
  • 41. Dehbi H, Azaroual MF, Zaoui F, Halimi A, Benyahia H. Therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets: A systematic review. Int Orthod. 2017;15(3):297-311. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2017.06.009. [PubMed: 28778722].

Featured Image:

Creative Commons License Except where otherwise noted, this work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 International License .

Search Relations:

Author(s):

Article(s):

Create Citiation Alert
via Google Reader

Readers' Comments