Advanced search
Publication Cover
Journal of Orthodontics Volume 40, 2013 - Issue 2
Journal homepage
1,505
Views
15
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Scientific Section

Does the bracket–ligature combination affect the amount of orthodontic space closure over three months? A randomized controlled trial

Henry Wong School of Clinical DentistryUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
,
Jill Collins School of Clinical DentistryUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
,
David Tinsley School of Clinical DentistryUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
,
Jonathan Sandler School of Clinical DentistryUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
&
Philip Benson School of Clinical DentistryUniversity of Sheffield, Sheffield, UKCorrespondence[email protected]
[email protected]
Pages 155-162 | Received 07 Dec 2012, Accepted 05 Jan 2013, Published online: 16 Dec 2014

References

  • 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.
  • Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4: 220–27.
  • 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.
  • Dholakia KK, Bhat SR. Clinical efficiency of nonconventional elastomeric ligatures in the canine retraction phase of preadjusted edgewise appliance therapy: an in-vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 141: 715–22.
  • Khambay B, Millett D, McHugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 327–32.
  • Griffiths HS, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Resistance to sliding with 3 types of elastomeric modules. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127: 670–75.
  • Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. A comparison of different ligation methods on friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 666–70.
  • Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 726 e1–18.
  • Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 575–84.
  • Dixon V, Read MJ, O’Brien KD, Worthington HV, Mandall NA. A randomized clinical trial to compare three methods of orthodontic space closure. J Orthod 2002; 29: 31–36.
  • Samuels RH, Rudge SJ, Mair LH. A comparison of the rate of space closure using a nickel-titanium spring and an elastic module: a clinical study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993; 103: 464–67.
  • Samuels RH, Rudge SJ, Mair LH. A clinical study of space closure with nickel-titanium closed coil springs and an elastic module. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114: 73–79.
  • Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 480–85.
  • Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 470 e1–8.
  • Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 340–47.
  • Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 597–602.
  • Miles PG. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 223–25.
  • Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM, Weissheimer A, Allgayer S. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 292–97.
  • DiBiase AT, Nasr IH, Scott P, Cobourne MT. Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: e111–16.
  • Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 208–15.
  • Burrow SJ. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 626–33.
  • Nightingale C, Jones SP. A clinical investigation of force delivery systems for orthodontic space closure. J Orthod 2003; 30: 229–36.
  • Pilon JJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Maltha JC. Magnitude of orthodontic forces and rate of bodily tooth movement. An experimental study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996; 110: 16–23.
  • Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effects of ligation type and method on the resistance to sliding of novel orthodontic brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod 2003; 73: 418–30.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.