Orthodontic Treatment Stability Evaluation with Two Different Ligation Bracket Systems: An Ambispective Cohort Study
Introduction: Orthodontic treatment aims to correct malocclusion and achieve stable occlusal relationships and facial aesthetics; however, the tendency of teeth to revert to their pretreatment positions remains a common challenge. Contributing factors to relapse include continued growth, muscular im...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
JCDR Research and Publications Private Limited
2025-03-01
|
| Series: | Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://jcdr.net/articles/PDF/20746/74596_CE[Ra1]_F(SS)_QC(PS_OM)_PF1(VD_OM)_redo_PFA(IS)_PB(VD_IS)_PN(IS).pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | Introduction: Orthodontic treatment aims to correct malocclusion and achieve stable occlusal relationships and facial aesthetics; however, the tendency of teeth to revert to their pretreatment positions remains a common challenge. Contributing factors to relapse include continued growth, muscular imbalance, oral habits, the type of retainer used, and Intercanine Width (ICW), with the highest incidence occurring immediately post-debonding. Self-ligating brackets, categorised as active or passive, have gained popularity for their efficiency and reduced treatment time; however, evidence of their impact on relapse compared to conventional brackets is limited.
Aim: To evaluate and compare the two-year post-treatment stability of orthodontic treatment using conventional brackets versus passive self-ligating brackets.
Materials and Methods: An ambispective cohort study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics at Saveetha Dental Hospitals, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India from January 2024 to March 2024. The study included 41 patients, divided into two groups: 20 subjects treated with conventional brackets (group 1) and 21 subjects treated with the passive self-ligating bracket system (group 2). All patients met the eligibility criteria and completed two years (T2) of retention with lower bonded retainers and upper removable Hawley retainers. Digital models and lateral cephalograms were taken pretreatment (T0), at debonding (T1), and at T2. Various parameters including ICW, Interpremolar width (IPW), Intermolar Width (IMW), Arch Perimeter (AP), Little’s Irregularity Index (LII), and cephalometric analysis were measured along with Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) scores. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0. A paired t-test was performed to test the differences between the measured parameters at T1 and T2, while an independent t-test was applied to compare differences between groups 1 and 2. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results: Relapse was observed at T2 in both groups, with self-ligating brackets demonstrating more significant changes in maxillary IPW (p-value <0.001), maxillary IMW (p-value <0.001), and LII (p-value=0.03). The PAR reduction rate from T0 to T1 was 97.15±4.41 for group 1 and 96.85±5.80 when comparing T0 with T2. For group 2, the PAR reduction rate from T0 to T1 was 98.05±2.1 and 93.0±2.1 for T0 to T2.
Conclusion: Orthodontic treatment with passive self-ligating brackets results in a higher relapse rate in transverse dimensions and incisor proinclination compared to conventional brackets. Improved retention strategies are necessary to mitigate relapse in patients treated with passive self-ligating brackets. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2249-782X 0973-709X |