Abbonarsi

Is there any difference between conventional, passive and active self-ligating brackets? A systematic review and network meta-analysis - 20/11/21

Doi : 10.1016/j.ortho.2021.09.005 
Raphaëlle Maizeray 1, , Delphine Wagner 1, François Lefebvre 2, Hélène Lévy-Bénichou 1, Yves Bolender 1
1 Sous-section d’Orthopédie dento-faciale, Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, 8, rue Ste-Élisabeth, 67000 Strasbourg, France 
2 Santé publique, Méthodologie et Biostatistiques, Hôpitaux Universitaires de Strasbourg, 1, place de l’hôpital, 67091 Strasbourg, France 

Raphaëlle Maizeray, Sous-section d’Orthopédie dento-faciale, Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, 8, rue Ste-Élisabeth, 67000 Strasbourg, France.Sous-section d’Orthopédie dento-faciale, Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg8, rue Ste-ÉlisabethStrasbourg67000France

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

pagine 16
Iconografia 11
Video 0
Altro 0

Summary

Aim

To test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in treatment efficiency between therapies undertaken with conventional (CBs), passive self-ligating (PSLBs) or active self-ligating (ASLBs) brackets.

Materials and methods

An electronic search was performed in 3 data bases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to January 2019. Additional references were hand searched. Search was strictly restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split-mouth design studies (SMDs). RCTs and SMDs were initially processed separately and subsequently combined in a network meta-analysis. The following variables were evaluated: treatment duration, number of visits, occlusal outcomes, alignment rate, transverse arch dimensional changes, incisor position modification, rate of space closure, anchorage loss, bond failure, root resorption, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of alignment, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal variables, quality of life.

Results

On 229 papers, 30 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally included in this study. Out of 85 comparisons, 16 only revealed statistically significant differences. It was quicker to untie and ligate an 0.014 NiTi arch from/in 6 ASLBs anterior ceramic brackets compared to 6 ceramic CBs. It was also more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025 SS wire in/from PSLB's brackets compared to CB's attachments. Compared to conventional brackets, there was less maxillary incisor proclination with PSLBs in non-extraction cases. Moreover, there was less bleeding on probing 4-5 weeks after bonding with PSLBs compared to CBs brackets. The only significant difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. The network meta-analysis revealed that IMPA was greater in extractions cases with CBs compared with both ASLBs (+2,5°) and PSLBs (+1,6°).

Conclusions

The vast majority of the studied variables did not show any significant differences between the three types of brackets. The most significant findings were that it was quicker to insert and remove archwires from ASLBs compared to CBs, and it was more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025” stainless steel wire in/from PSLBs compared to CBs. The major difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. Most of the claims put forward by the suppliers were not substantiated by our network meta-analysis.

Il testo completo di questo articolo è disponibile in PDF.

Keywords : Orthodontic brackets, Self-ligating brackets, Orthodontic appliance design, Treatment outcome, Systematic review, Network meta-analysis


Mappa


© 2021  CEO. Pubblicato da Elsevier Masson SAS. Tutti i diritti riservati.
Aggiungere alla mia biblioteca Togliere dalla mia biblioteca Stampare
Esportazione

    Citazioni Export

  • File

  • Contenuto

Vol 19 - N° 4

P. 523-538 - dicembre 2021 Ritorno al numero
Articolo precedente Articolo precedente
  • Contents
| Articolo seguente Articolo seguente
  • Effect of Direct versus Indirect Bonding Technique on the Failure Rate of Mandibular Fixed Retainer–A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
  • Aqeel Ahmed, Mubassar Fida, Saqib Habib, Faizan Javed, Umair Shoukat Ali

Benvenuto su EM|consulte, il riferimento dei professionisti della salute.
L'accesso al testo integrale di questo articolo richiede un abbonamento.

Già abbonato a @@106933@@ rivista ?

@@150455@@ Voir plus

Il mio account


Dichiarazione CNIL

EM-CONSULTE.COM è registrato presso la CNIL, dichiarazione n. 1286925.

Ai sensi della legge n. 78-17 del 6 gennaio 1978 sull'informatica, sui file e sulle libertà, Lei puo' esercitare i diritti di opposizione (art.26 della legge), di accesso (art.34 a 38 Legge), e di rettifica (art.36 della legge) per i dati che La riguardano. Lei puo' cosi chiedere che siano rettificati, compeltati, chiariti, aggiornati o cancellati i suoi dati personali inesati, incompleti, equivoci, obsoleti o la cui raccolta o di uso o di conservazione sono vietati.
Le informazioni relative ai visitatori del nostro sito, compresa la loro identità, sono confidenziali.
Il responsabile del sito si impegna sull'onore a rispettare le condizioni legali di confidenzialità applicabili in Francia e a non divulgare tali informazioni a terzi.


Tutto il contenuto di questo sito: Copyright © 2026 Elsevier, i suoi licenziatari e contributori. Tutti i diritti sono riservati. Inclusi diritti per estrazione di testo e di dati, addestramento dell’intelligenza artificiale, e tecnologie simili. Per tutto il contenuto ‘open access’ sono applicati i termini della licenza Creative Commons.