Cargando…

Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances requires - among others - the correct clinical expression of torque, which depends on the precise fitting of archwire and slot. Especially in the lingual technique torque problems become clinically more evident than in labial appliances also wi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Demling, Anton, Dittmer, Marc P, Schwestka-Polly, Rainer
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2803453/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20003510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-5-27
_version_ 1782176053195702272
author Demling, Anton
Dittmer, Marc P
Schwestka-Polly, Rainer
author_facet Demling, Anton
Dittmer, Marc P
Schwestka-Polly, Rainer
author_sort Demling, Anton
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances requires - among others - the correct clinical expression of torque, which depends on the precise fitting of archwire and slot. Especially in the lingual technique torque problems become clinically more evident than in labial appliances also with respect to the vertical alignment of teeth due to different distances from the center of resistance. The purpose of the present study was to compare the preciseness of slot dimensions of different lingual bracket systems. METHODS: Three lingual bracket systems were included in the study (7(th )Generation and STb, Ormco, Glendora, CA, USA; Incognito, TOP-Service/3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). Non destructive analysis of vertical slot dimensions was performed using precision pin gauges (Azurea, Belprahon, Switzerland) that were tapered in increments of 0.002 mm (0.00008 inch). The sizes of 240 incisor and canine brackets were measured per system (total: 720). Data were compared using one-way ANOVA. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Average slot dimensions were 0.467 mm ± 0.007 mm (0.0184 inch ± 0.0003 inch) for the 7(th )Generation bracket system, 0.466 mm ± 0.004 mm (0.0183 inch ± 0.0001) inch for the STb bracket system and 0.459 mm ± 0.004 mm (0.0181 inch ± 0.0001) inch for the Incognito bracket system. Differences between systems were statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed bracket systems for lingual treatment exhibited significant differences in slot dimension that will clinically result in torque play. These aspects must be considered in lingual orthodontic treatment.
format Text
id pubmed-2803453
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28034532010-01-09 Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems Demling, Anton Dittmer, Marc P Schwestka-Polly, Rainer Head Face Med Research BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances requires - among others - the correct clinical expression of torque, which depends on the precise fitting of archwire and slot. Especially in the lingual technique torque problems become clinically more evident than in labial appliances also with respect to the vertical alignment of teeth due to different distances from the center of resistance. The purpose of the present study was to compare the preciseness of slot dimensions of different lingual bracket systems. METHODS: Three lingual bracket systems were included in the study (7(th )Generation and STb, Ormco, Glendora, CA, USA; Incognito, TOP-Service/3 M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). Non destructive analysis of vertical slot dimensions was performed using precision pin gauges (Azurea, Belprahon, Switzerland) that were tapered in increments of 0.002 mm (0.00008 inch). The sizes of 240 incisor and canine brackets were measured per system (total: 720). Data were compared using one-way ANOVA. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Average slot dimensions were 0.467 mm ± 0.007 mm (0.0184 inch ± 0.0003 inch) for the 7(th )Generation bracket system, 0.466 mm ± 0.004 mm (0.0183 inch ± 0.0001) inch for the STb bracket system and 0.459 mm ± 0.004 mm (0.0181 inch ± 0.0001) inch for the Incognito bracket system. Differences between systems were statistically significant (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The analyzed bracket systems for lingual treatment exhibited significant differences in slot dimension that will clinically result in torque play. These aspects must be considered in lingual orthodontic treatment. BioMed Central 2009-12-15 /pmc/articles/PMC2803453/ /pubmed/20003510 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-5-27 Text en Copyright ©2009 Demling et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Demling, Anton
Dittmer, Marc P
Schwestka-Polly, Rainer
Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems
title Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems
title_full Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems
title_fullStr Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems
title_full_unstemmed Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems
title_short Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems
title_sort comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2803453/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20003510
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-5-27
work_keys_str_mv AT demlinganton comparativeanalysisofslotdimensioninlingualbracketsystems
AT dittmermarcp comparativeanalysisofslotdimensioninlingualbracketsystems
AT schwestkapollyrainer comparativeanalysisofslotdimensioninlingualbracketsystems