Alobeid Ahmad, El-Bialy Tarek, Khawatmi Said, Dirk Cornelius, Jäger Andreas, Bourauel Christoph
Department of Oral Technology, School of Dentistry, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Division of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Eur J Orthod. 2017 Aug 1;39(4):419-425. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjw082.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate force levels exerted by levelling arch wires with labial and lingual conventional and self-ligating brackets.
MATERIALS/METHODS: The tested orthodontic brackets were of the 0.022-in slot size for labial and 0.018-in for lingual brackets and were as follows: 1. Labial brackets: (i) conventional bracket (GAC-Twin, Dentsply), (ii) passive self-ligating (SL) brackets (Damon-Q®, ORMCO; Ortho classic H4™, Orthoclassic; FLI®SL, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics) and (iii) active SL brackets (GAC In-Ovation®C, DENTSPLY and SPEED™, Strite). 2. Lingual brackets: (i) conventional brackets (Incognito, 3M and Joy™, Adenta); (ii) passive SL bracket (GAC In-Ovation®LM™, Dentsply and (iii) active SL bracket (Evolution SLT, Adenta). Thermalloy-NiTi 0.013-in and 0.014-in arch wires (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics) were used with all brackets. The simulated malocclusion represented a maxillary central incisor displaced 2 mm gingivally (x-axis) and 2 mm labially (z-axis).
Lingual bracket systems showed higher force levels (2.4 ± 0.2 to 3.8 ± 0.2 N) compared to labial bracket systems (from 1.1 ± 0.1 to 2.2 ± 0.4 N). However, the differences between SL and conventional bracket systems were minor and not consistent (labial brackets: 1.2 ± 0.1 N for the GAC Twin and 1.1 ± 0.1 to 1.6 ± 0.1 N for the SL brackets with 0.013-in thermalloy; lingual brackets: 2.5 ± 0.2 to 3.5 ± 0.1 N for the conventional and 2.7 ± 0.3 to 3.4 ± 0.1 N for the SL brackets with 0.013-in Thermalloy).
This is an in vitro study with different slot sizes in the labial and lingual bracket systems, results should be interpreted with caution.
CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Lingual bracket systems showed higher forces compared to labial bracket systems that might be of clinical concern. We recommend highly flexible nickel titanium arch wires lower than 0.013-in for the initial levelling and alignment especially with lingual appliances.
背景/目的:本研究旨在评估使用唇侧和舌侧传统及自锁托槽时整平弓丝所施加的力水平。
材料/方法:测试的正畸托槽唇侧槽沟尺寸为0.022英寸,舌侧为0.018英寸,具体如下:1. 唇侧托槽:(i)传统托槽(GAC-Twin,登士柏),(ii)被动自锁(SL)托槽(Damon-Q®,奥美科;Ortho classic H4™,Orthoclassic;FLI®SL,落基山正畸),(iii)主动自锁托槽(GAC In-Ovation®C,登士柏和SPEED™,司特瑞特)。2. 舌侧托槽:(i)传统托槽(Incognito,3M和Joy™,阿登塔);(ii)被动自锁托槽(GAC In-Ovation®LM™,登士柏),(iii)主动自锁托槽(Evolution SLT,阿登塔)。所有托槽均使用了直径0.013英寸和0.014英寸的Thermalloy-NiTi弓丝(落基山正畸)。模拟错颌表现为上颌中切牙牙龈向移位2毫米(x轴)和唇向移位2毫米(z轴)。
与唇侧托槽系统(力值范围为1.1±0.1至2.2±0.4牛)相比,舌侧托槽系统显示出更高的力水平(2.4±0.2至3.8±0.2牛)。然而,自锁托槽系统与传统托槽系统之间的差异较小且不一致(唇侧托槽:GAC Twin为1.2±0.1牛,使用0.013英寸Thermalloy弓丝的自锁托槽为1.1±0.1至1.6±0.1牛;舌侧托槽:传统托槽为2.5±0.2至3.5±0.1牛,使用0.013英寸Thermalloy弓丝的自锁托槽为2.7±0.3至3.4±0.1牛)。
这是一项体外研究,唇侧和舌侧托槽系统的槽沟尺寸不同,结果应谨慎解读。
结论/启示:与唇侧托槽系统相比,舌侧托槽系统显示出更高的力,这可能具有临床意义。我们建议在初始整平排齐时,尤其是使用舌侧矫治器时,使用低于0.013英寸的高弹性镍钛弓丝。