Skip to main content

Customized lingual brackets vs. conventional labial brackets for initial alignment

A randomized clinical trial

Individuell angepasste Lingualbrackets vs. konventionelle Labialbrackets zur Erstausrichtung

Eine randomisierte klinische Studie

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this randomized prospective clinical study was to determine whether there are differences between customized lingual brackets and conventional labial brackets regarding the alignment of the mandibular arch and a reduction of the irregularity index during an 18-week treatment interval.

Methods

A total of 20 patients who presented with class I malocclusion for scheduled orthodontic treatment without tooth extraction were included. The patients were randomly assigned by numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes to treatment with customized lingual brackets or conventional labial brackets. During the initial alignment (T0), 0.012″ (T1), 0.014″ (T2), and 0.016″ (T3) nickel–titanium archwires were applied, respectively, and the control visits were scheduled at 6‑week intervals. In all sessions, digital models were obtained by an intraoral scanning device after removal of the archwire and were analyzed by software. Little’s irregularity index, intercanine width, intermolar width and arch length were evaluated at three time points and were statistically analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Changes in these measurements at the three intervals (T1–T0, T2–T1, T3–T2) and overall treatment effects were also compared using the Student t‑test.

Results

Comparing the two treatments regimes, intergroup mean values at T0, T1, T2, and T3 were not significantly different regarding the irregularity index, intercanine width, intermolar width and arch length.

Conclusion

In this pilot study, no differences between the two treatment approaches could be detected for the phase of initial mandibular alignment.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

Ziel dieser randomisierten, prospektiven klinischen Studie war es, festzustellen, ob es Unterschiede zwischen individualisierten Lingualbrackets und konventionellen Labialbrackets hinsichtlich der Nivellierung des Kieferbogens und einer Reduktion des Irregularitätsindexes während eines 18-wöchigen Behandlungsintervalls gibt.

Methoden

Eingeschlossen wurden insgesamt 20 Patienten, die sich mit einer Klasse-I-Malokklusion zur geplanten kieferorthopädischen Behandlung ohne Zahnextraktion vorstellten. Die Patienten wurden durch nummerierte, undurchsichtige und versiegelte Umschläge zufällig einer Behandlung zugewiesen: mit individualisierten Lingualbrackets oder konventionellen Labialbrackets. Während der Erstanpassung (T0) wurden 0,012″ (T1), 0,014″ (T2) bzw. 0,016″ (T3) Nickel-Titan-Bögen appliziert, und die Kontrollbesuche wurden im Abstand von 6 Wochen angesetzt. In allen Behandlungssitzungen wurden digitale Modelle mit einem intraoralen Scangerät nach Entfernung des Bogendrahtes erstellt und per Software ausgewertet. Der Irregularitätsindex nach Little, die Intereckzahnbreite, intermolare Breite und die Bogenlänge wurden zu 3 Zeitpunkten evaluiert und mit wiederholten Varianzanalysen (ANOVA) der Messungen statistisch ausgewertet. Die Veränderungen dieser Messungen zu den 3 Zeitpunkten (T1-T0, T2-T1, T3-T2) und die Gesamteffekte der Behandlung wurden ebenfalls mit dem t‑Test verglichen.

Ergebnisse

Im Vergleich der beiden Behandlungsregimes unterschieden sich die Mittelwerte zwischen den Gruppen bei T0, T1, T2 und T3 nicht signifikant in Bezug auf den Irregularitätsindex, die Intereckzahnbreite, die Intermolarbreite und die Bogenlänge.

Schlussfolgerung

In dieser Pilotstudie konnten keine Unterschiede zwischen den beiden Behandlungsansätzen für die Phase der initialen Unterkieferausrichtung festgestellt werden.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1 Abb. 1
Fig. 2 Abb. 2
Fig. 3 Abb. 3

Abbreviations

NiTi:

Nickel–titanium

References

  1. Wiechmann D, Klang E, Helms HJ, Knösel M (2015) Lingual appliances reduce the incidence of white spot lesions during orthodontic multibracket treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 148(3):414–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.05.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ (2007) Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131(3):395–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lovrov S, Hertrich K, Hirschelder U (2007) Enamel demineralization during fixed orthodontic treatment-incidence and correlation to various oral-hygine parameters. J Orofac Orthop 68(5):353–363. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-007-0714-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Stamm T, Hohoff A, Ehmer U (2005) A subjective comparison of two lingual bracket systems. Eur J Orthod 27(4):420–426. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Wiechmann D (2003) A new bracket system for lingual orthodontic treatment. Part 2: first clinical experiences and further development. J Orofac Orthop 64(5):372–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-003-0325-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Wiechmann D (2002) A new bracket system for lingual orthodontic treatment. Part 1: theoretical background and development. J Orofac Orthop 63(3):234–245. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-002-0211-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Romano R (2006) Concepts on control of the anterior teeth using the lingual appliance. Semin Orthod 12(3):178–185. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sodo.2006.05.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Geron S, Romano R, Brosh T (2004) Vertical forces in labial and lingual orthodontics applied on maxillary incisors⎯a theoretical approach. Angle Orthod 74(2):195–201. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074〈0195:vfilal〉2.0.co;2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Auluck A (2013) Lingual orthodontic treatment: what is the current evidence base? J Orthod 40(S1):S27–S33. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313313y.0000000073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT (2008) Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134(4):470.e1–470.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT (2010) Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137(6):738–742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Alobeid A, El-Bialy T, Reimann S, Keilig L, Cornelius D, Jäger A, Bourauel C (2018) Comparison of the efficacy of tooth alignment among lingual and labial brackets: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 40(6):660–665. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjy005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Little RM (1975) The irregularity index: a quantitative score of mandibular anterior alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 68(5):554–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(75)90086-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sifakakis I, Pandis N, Makou M, Eliades T, Katsaros C, Bourauel C (2013) A comparative assessment of torque generated by lingual and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 35(3):375–380. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjs029

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sifakakis I, Pandis N, Makou M, Katsaros C, Eliades T, Bourauel C (2013) A comparative assessment of forces and moments generated by lingual and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 35(1):82–86. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr048

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Shivapuja PK, Berger J (1994) A comparative study of conventional ligation and self–ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 106(5):472–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(94)70069-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP (2002) Effect of archwire size and material on the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 122(3):295–305. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.126156

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Traini T, Di lorio D, D’Attilio M (2005) Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model. Angle Orthod 75(6):1041–1045. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[1041:focasb]2.0.co;2

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Montasser MA, Keilig L, Bourauel C (2015) An in vitro study into the efficacy of complex tooth alignment with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res 18(1):33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12057

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT (2009) Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and levelling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 136(3):340–347. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.030

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP, Ho C (2010) Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 138(2):138.e1–138.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.03.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Fuck LM, Wiechmann D, Drescher D (2005) Comparison of the initial orthodontic force systems produced by a new lingual bracket system and a straight-wire appliance. J Orofac Orthop 66(5):363–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-005-0442-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wiechmann D, Bantleon HP, Melsen B, Zachrisson B, Hägg U, Canal P et al (2020) Incorrect measurements and misleading conclusions in the article “Comparison of the efficacy of tooth alignment among lingual and labial brackets: an in vitro study”. Head Face Med 16(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-020-00221-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Khattab TZ, Hajeer MY, Farah H, Al-Sabbagh R (2014) Maxillary dental arch changes following the leveling and alignment stage with lingual and labial orthodontic appliances: a preliminary report of a randomized controlled trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 15(5):561–566. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Lombardo L, Fattori L, Molinari C, Mirabella D, Siciliani G (2013) Dental and alveolar arch forms in a Caucasian population compared with commercially available archwires. Int Orthod 11(4):389–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2013.09.005

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Celikoglu M, Bayram M, Nur M, Kilkis D (2015) Mandibular changes during initial alignment with SmartClip self-ligating and conventional brackets: A single-center prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. Korean J Orthod 45(2):89–94. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.89

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank to Prof. Dr. Hüsnü Erbay Bardakçıoğlu for his valuable contribution to the statistical analysis of the data.

Funding

This work was supported by Aydın Adnan Menderes University Research Projects (DHF-15010).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yazgı Ay Ünüvar DDS, PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

M. Kaptaç and Y. Ay Ünüvar declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (the ethics committee of Aydın Adnan Menderes University, Medicine School [2016/897]) and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. All patients and legal guardians gave written informed consent before participation. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04357067). Written informed consent was obtained from the patients for publication of this research and accompanying images.

Trial registration number

NCT04357067 retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 21 April 2020.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Availability of data and material

The data supporting the findings of this research can be obtained directly from the authors of the study.

Protocol

The full protocol of this study can be accessed from the National Thesis Database of Turkey (tez.yok.gov.tr).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaptaç, M., Ay Ünüvar, Y. Customized lingual brackets vs. conventional labial brackets for initial alignment. J Orofac Orthop (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-021-00295-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-021-00295-1

Keywords

  • Mandible
  • Digital model
  • Lingual orthodontics
  • Treatment outcome
  • Angle class I malocclusion

Schlüsselwörter

  • Unterkiefer
  • Digitales Modell
  • Linguale Kieferorthopädie
  • Behandlungsergebnis
  • Angle-Klasse-I-Malokklusion