Cargando…

Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: El-Angbawi, Ahmed MF, Bearn, David R, McIntyre, Grant T
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4197276/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25288125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-389
_version_ 1782339593243197440
author El-Angbawi, Ahmed MF
Bearn, David R
McIntyre, Grant T
author_facet El-Angbawi, Ahmed MF
Bearn, David R
McIntyre, Grant T
author_sort El-Angbawi, Ahmed MF
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician’s choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient’s perception of wearing orthodontic appliances. DISCUSSION: The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4197276
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41972762014-10-16 Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial El-Angbawi, Ahmed MF Bearn, David R McIntyre, Grant T Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician’s choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient’s perception of wearing orthodontic appliances. DISCUSSION: The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. BioMed Central 2014-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC4197276/ /pubmed/25288125 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-389 Text en © El-Angbawi et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
El-Angbawi, Ahmed MF
Bearn, David R
McIntyre, Grant T
Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_short Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_sort comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4197276/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25288125
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-389
work_keys_str_mv AT elangbawiahmedmf comparingtheeffectivenessofthe0018inchversusthe0022inchbracketslotsysteminorthodontictreatmentstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT bearndavidr comparingtheeffectivenessofthe0018inchversusthe0022inchbracketslotsysteminorthodontictreatmentstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mcintyregrantt comparingtheeffectivenessofthe0018inchversusthe0022inchbracketslotsysteminorthodontictreatmentstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial