Cargando…

A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study

OBJECTIVE: Clinical comparison of the survival rates between stainless steel and ceramic brackets over a 12-month period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 20 consecutive patients with diagnosed malocclusion that required two-arch fixed appliance treatment. The participants were randomly div...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ogiński, Tomasz, Kawala, Beata, Mikulewicz, Marcin, Antoszewska-Smith, Joanna
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32382584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9725101
_version_ 1783529170664423424
author Ogiński, Tomasz
Kawala, Beata
Mikulewicz, Marcin
Antoszewska-Smith, Joanna
author_facet Ogiński, Tomasz
Kawala, Beata
Mikulewicz, Marcin
Antoszewska-Smith, Joanna
author_sort Ogiński, Tomasz
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: Clinical comparison of the survival rates between stainless steel and ceramic brackets over a 12-month period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 20 consecutive patients with diagnosed malocclusion that required two-arch fixed appliance treatment. The participants were randomly divided into two 10-member groups. Group 1 was treated with Abzil Agile (3M Unitek) stainless steel brackets; group 2 was treated with Radiance (American Orthodontics) monocrystalline ceramic brackets. All the brackets were bonded by the same operator. Over the next 12 months, all bracket failures were recorded with each appointment. The received data were processed statistically using the Mantel–Cox test, Kaplan–Meier method, and Cox hazard model. RESULTS: A total of 381 brackets were bonded, 195 of which were metallic brackets and 186 were ceramic ones. In the 12-month observation period, there were 14 metal (7.2%) and 2 ceramic bracket (1.1%) failures. The overall failure rate was 4.2% (n = 16). The majority of failures (14 brackets; 87.5%) occurred during the first 6 months of the experiment, 12 (83%) of which were metal brackets and 2 (100%) were ceramic brackets. The statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Metal brackets demonstrated significantly higher failure rates than ceramic brackets for both 6- and 12-month observation periods (p < 0.05). The 6% difference between the brackets is clinically significant as it corresponds to one additional failure within 12 months.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7199564
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71995642020-05-07 A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study Ogiński, Tomasz Kawala, Beata Mikulewicz, Marcin Antoszewska-Smith, Joanna Biomed Res Int Research Article OBJECTIVE: Clinical comparison of the survival rates between stainless steel and ceramic brackets over a 12-month period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study involved 20 consecutive patients with diagnosed malocclusion that required two-arch fixed appliance treatment. The participants were randomly divided into two 10-member groups. Group 1 was treated with Abzil Agile (3M Unitek) stainless steel brackets; group 2 was treated with Radiance (American Orthodontics) monocrystalline ceramic brackets. All the brackets were bonded by the same operator. Over the next 12 months, all bracket failures were recorded with each appointment. The received data were processed statistically using the Mantel–Cox test, Kaplan–Meier method, and Cox hazard model. RESULTS: A total of 381 brackets were bonded, 195 of which were metallic brackets and 186 were ceramic ones. In the 12-month observation period, there were 14 metal (7.2%) and 2 ceramic bracket (1.1%) failures. The overall failure rate was 4.2% (n = 16). The majority of failures (14 brackets; 87.5%) occurred during the first 6 months of the experiment, 12 (83%) of which were metal brackets and 2 (100%) were ceramic brackets. The statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the groups (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Metal brackets demonstrated significantly higher failure rates than ceramic brackets for both 6- and 12-month observation periods (p < 0.05). The 6% difference between the brackets is clinically significant as it corresponds to one additional failure within 12 months. Hindawi 2020-01-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7199564/ /pubmed/32382584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9725101 Text en Copyright © 2020 Tomasz Ogiński et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ogiński, Tomasz
Kawala, Beata
Mikulewicz, Marcin
Antoszewska-Smith, Joanna
A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study
title A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study
title_full A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study
title_fullStr A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study
title_full_unstemmed A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study
title_short A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study
title_sort clinical comparison of failure rates of metallic and ceramic brackets: a twelve-month study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7199564/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32382584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/9725101
work_keys_str_mv AT oginskitomasz aclinicalcomparisonoffailureratesofmetallicandceramicbracketsatwelvemonthstudy
AT kawalabeata aclinicalcomparisonoffailureratesofmetallicandceramicbracketsatwelvemonthstudy
AT mikulewiczmarcin aclinicalcomparisonoffailureratesofmetallicandceramicbracketsatwelvemonthstudy
AT antoszewskasmithjoanna aclinicalcomparisonoffailureratesofmetallicandceramicbracketsatwelvemonthstudy
AT oginskitomasz clinicalcomparisonoffailureratesofmetallicandceramicbracketsatwelvemonthstudy
AT kawalabeata clinicalcomparisonoffailureratesofmetallicandceramicbracketsatwelvemonthstudy
AT mikulewiczmarcin clinicalcomparisonoffailureratesofmetallicandceramicbracketsatwelvemonthstudy
AT antoszewskasmithjoanna clinicalcomparisonoffailureratesofmetallicandceramicbracketsatwelvemonthstudy