Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University, Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Syrian Private University, Damascus, Syrian Arab Republic.
J Orofac Orthop. 2023 Apr;84(Suppl 2):74-83. doi: 10.1007/s00056-022-00407-5. Epub 2022 Jul 5.
In this parallel, three-arm, single-center randomized trial, the dental and basal arch dimensions after orthodontic treatment using conventional brackets and passive and active self-ligating (SL) brackets were compared.
Patients needing comprehensive orthodontic treatment were randomly allocated to the active SL, passive SL, or conventional brackets (control) group. All patients were treated with a standardized arch wires sequence. Eligibility criteria included class I malocclusion in the permanent dentition, crowding (4-6 mm), and adequate oral hygiene. The primary outcome was intermolar width, based on cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans. Secondary outcomes were maxillary and mandibular widths in the canines and premolars regions, dental arch depth, buccolingual inclination, and alignment duration. Blinding of outcome assessment was implemented. Patients were followed every 4 weeks until insertion of the stainless steel 0.019 × 0.025 wire. Mean values were computed from CBCT sections, and data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance.
In all, 66 patients (ages 18-25 years) were randomized into a 1:1:1 ratio; 7 patients dropped out before treatment initiation. Examining dental arch dimensions in the canine and premolar regions showed that expansion of the maxillary dental arch was greatest in the passive SL brackets group, less in the active SL brackets group, and lowest in the control group (P < 0.01). Changes in maxillary intermolar width between the three groups were not significant, and changes in basal arch dimensions, depth of dental and basal arches, buccolingual inclination, and alignment duration were similar in the three groups.
Self-ligating brackets were not more effective than conventional brackets when examining intermolar width, basal transverse dimensions, depth of the arch, and alignment duration.
本项平行、三臂、单中心随机试验比较了使用传统托槽、被动自锁托槽和主动自锁托槽(SL)正畸治疗后的牙弓和基骨弓宽度。
需要综合正畸治疗的患者被随机分配至主动 SL 组、被动 SL 组或传统托槽(对照)组。所有患者均接受标准化的弓丝序列治疗。入选标准包括恒牙列的 I 类错颌畸形、拥挤(4-6mm)和良好的口腔卫生。主要结局为基于锥形束 CT(CBCT)扫描的尖牙间宽度。次要结局为尖牙和前磨牙区上颌和下颌宽度、牙弓深度、颊舌向倾斜度和排齐时间。实施结局评估盲法。患者每 4 周随访一次,直至不锈钢 0.019×0.025 弓丝插入。从 CBCT 切片中计算平均值,使用单因素方差分析进行数据分析。
共有 66 名(18-25 岁)患者按 1:1:1 比例随机分组,7 名患者在治疗开始前退出。检查尖牙和前磨牙区的牙弓宽度,发现上颌牙弓扩展最大的是被动 SL 托槽组,其次是主动 SL 托槽组,最小的是对照组(P<0.01)。三组间上颌尖牙间宽度的变化无显著差异,而三组间基骨弓宽度、牙弓和基骨深度、颊舌向倾斜度和排齐时间的变化相似。
在检查尖牙间宽度、基骨横向尺寸、牙弓深度和排齐时间时,自锁托槽并不比传统托槽更有效。