Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Systematic review on self-ligating vs. conventional brackets: initial pain, number of visits, treatment time

Systematisches Review über ligaturfreie und konventionelle Brackets: initiale Schmerzen, Anzahl der Behandlungstermine, Therapiedauer

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

Meta-analysis of differences between conventional and self-ligating brackets concerning pain during tooth movement, number of patient visits, total treatment duration, and ligation times.

Materials and methods

Online search in Medline, Embase, and Central focused on randomized clinical trials and controlled clinical studies published between 1996 and 2012.

Results

Four studies on pain met our inclusion criteria, two on the number of appointments, two on overall treatment time but none on ligation times. Pain levels did not differ significantly between patients treated with conventional or self-ligating brackets after 4 h, 24 h, 3 and 7 days. The number of appointments and total treatment times revealed no significant differences between self-ligating and conventional brackets.

Conclusion

The lack of significant overall effects apparent in this meta-analysis contradicts evidence-based statements on the advantages of self-ligating brackets over conventional ones regarding discomfort during initial orthodontic therapy, number of appointments, and total treatment time. Due to the limited number of studies included, further randomized controlled clinical trials are required to deliver more data and to substantiate evidence-based conclusions on differences between the two bracket types considering orthodontic pain, number of visits, treatment, and ligation times.

Zusammenfassung

Fragestellung

Metaanalyse zu Unterschieden zwischen selbstligierenden und konventionellen Brackets hinsichtlich der Schmerzen bei Zahnbewegung, Behandlungsfrequenz, Behandlungsdauer und Ligationszeit.

Material und Methode

Onlinesuche in Medline, Embase und Central nach randomisierten klinischen und kontrollierten klinischen Studien der Jahre 1996–2012.

Ergebnisse

Den Einschlusskriterien entsprachen vier Schmerzstudien, zwei über die Anzahl an Behandlungsterminen, zwei zur Gesamttherapiedauer, aber keine Publikationen zur Dauer des Ein- und Ausligierens. Bei den Schmerzangaben nach 4 h, 24 h, 3 Tagen und 7 Tagen festsitzender Kieferorthopädie bestanden keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen selbstligierenden und konventionellen Brackets. Die Metaanalyse zeigte auch bei der Terminfrequenz und Gesamtbehandlungsdauer keine signifikant unterschiedlichen Gesamteffekte zwischen beiden Bracketarten.

Schlussfolgerung

Das Fehlen signifikanter Gesamteffekte in der Metaanalyse erlaubt keine evidenzbasierten Aussagen, dass selbstligierende Brackets geringere Schmerzen in der ersten Behandlungswoche, weniger Behandlungstermine oder kürzere Gesamtbehandlungsdauern bewirkten. Aufgrund der geringen Zahl brauchbarer Arbeiten bedarf es weiterer randomisierter, kontrollierter Studien, um mehr Daten und damit substanzielle, evidenzbasierte Konklusionen über Unterschiede zwischen selbstligierenden und konventionellen Brackets hinsichtlich Schmerz und zeitlicher Aspekte zu erlangen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Abramoff MD, Magalhaes PJ, Ram SJ (2004) Image processing with ImageJ. Biophoton Int 11:36–42

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bartzela T, Turp JC, Motschall E et al (2009) Medication effects on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic literature review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 135:16–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Berger J, Byloff FK (2001) The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets. J Clin Orthod 35:304–308

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Bergius M, Berggren U, Kiliaridis S (2002) Experience of pain during an orthodontic procedure. Eur J Oral Sci 110:92–98

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE et al (2010) Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:726. e1–e726. e18 (discussion 726–727)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. DiBiase AT, Nasr IH, Scott P et al (2011) 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 139:e111–e116

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Doll GM, Zentner A, Klages U et al (2000) Relationship between patient discomfort, appliance acceptance and compliance in orthodontic therapy. J Orofac Orthop 61:398–413

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC (2001) Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 4:228–234

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Eltz M, Ibel G (2007) Passive und aktive selbstligierende Brackets im klinischen Alltag. Kieferorthopädie 21:203–210

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fernandes LM, Ogaard B, Skoglund L (1998) Pain and discomfort experienced after placement of a conventional or a superelastic NiTi aligning archwire. A randomized clinical trial. J Orofac Orthop 59:331–339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. 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 137:738–742

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fleming PS, Dibiase AT, Sarri G et al (2009) Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle Orthod 79:46–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fleming PS, Johal A (2010) Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 80:575–584

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fuck LM, Wilmes B, Gürler G et al (2007) Frictional behavior of self ligating brackets in comparison to conventional brackets. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 39:6–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K (2008) Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Aust Orthod J 24:102–109

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Harradine NW (2001) Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 4:220–227

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Harradine NW (2003) Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 30:262–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Higgins JPT, Green S, Collaboration C (2008) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Online Library

  20. Jäger A, Braumann B, Kim C et al (2001) Skeletal and dental effects of maxillary protraction in patients with angle class III malocclusion. A meta-analysis. J Orofac Orthop 62:275–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jiang LQ, Dai J, Liu JL (2009) Comparative study on pain experience with fixed orthodontic treatment of Damon 3Mx™ self-ligating and conventional Mbt™ appliance. J Xi’an Jiaotong University (Medical Sciences) 30:648–650

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kaklamanos EG, Athanasiou AE (2011) Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139:145–146 (author reply 146–147)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Krishnan V (2007) Orthodontic pain: from causes to management — a review. Eur J Orthod 29:170–179

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McNamara JAJ, Bagramian RA (1999) Prospective survey of percutaneous injuries in orthodontic assistants. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 115:72–76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Miles P, Weyant R (2010) Porcelain brackets during initial alignment: are self-ligating cosmetic brackets more efficient? Aust Orthod J 26:21–26

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L (2006) A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 76:480–485

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Paduano S, Cioffi I, Iodice G et al (2008) Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems. Prog Orthod 9:74–80

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T (2006) Failure rate of self-ligating and edgewise brackets bonded with conventional acid etching and a self-etching primer: a prospective in vivo study. Angle Orthod 76:119–122

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B (1998) Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 20:283–291

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Pramanik K, Das U, Adhikari B et al (2008) RhCl3-assisted C–H and C–S bond scissions: isomeric self-association of organorhodium(III) thiolato complex. synthesis, structure, and electrochemistry. Inorg Chem 47:429–438

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Pringle AM, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ et al (2009) Prospective randomized clinical trial to compare pain levels associated with 2 orthodontic fixed bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 136:160–167

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH (1997) A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod 24:309–317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG (2007) Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:216–222

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Scheurer PA, Firestone AR, Burgin WB (1996) Perception of pain as a result of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Eur J Orthod 18:349–357

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Scott P, Sherriff M, Dibiase AT et al (2008) Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod 30:227–232

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Sergl HG, Klages U, Zentner A (1998) Pain and discomfort during orthodontic treatment: causative factors and effects on compliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114:684–691

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Shivapuja PK, Berger J (1994) A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 106:472–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Tecco S, D’Attilio M, Tete S et al (2009) Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 31:380–384

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D (1998) A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 20:589–596

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP (2002) Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 121:472–482

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ (2007) Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131:395–399

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Ukra A, Bennani F, Farella M (2011) Psychological aspects of orthodontics in clinical practice. Part one: treatment-specific variables. Prog Orthod 12:143–148

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Van Leeuwen EJ, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM, Von den Hoff JW et al (2010) Rate of orthodontic tooth movement after changing the force magnitude: an experimental study in beagle dogs. Orthod Craniofac Res 13:238–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Xiaoting L, Yin T, Yangxi C (2010) Interventions for pain during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 80:925–932

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Yamaguchi M, Takizawa T, Nakajima R et al (2009) The Damon system and release of substance P in gingival crevicular fluid during orthodontic tooth movement in adults. World J Orthod 10:141–146

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Yorita R, Sameshima GT (2007) A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. IADR 85th General Session and Exhibition, Abstract 1918

  47. Zhu YL (2009) Tolerance comparison between patients with self-ligating brackets and conventional straight wire brackets during initial alignment. J Clin Rehab Tissue Eng Res 13:4893–4896

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there are no conflicts of interest.

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Orthodontics, Bernhard Gottlieb University Clinic of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Sensengasse 2a, 1090, Vienna, Austria

    A.G. Čelar, M. Schedlberger, P. Dörfler & M.H. Bertl

Authors
  1. A.G. Čelar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M. Schedlberger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Dörfler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M.H. Bertl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A.G. Čelar.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Čelar, A., Schedlberger, M., Dörfler, P. et al. Systematic review on self-ligating vs. conventional brackets: initial pain, number of visits, treatment time. J Orofac Orthop 74, 40–51 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0116-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0116-x

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation