The Effects of Different Bracket Types on Orthodontic Treatment Evaluated with the Objective Grading System

Suli Andryani, Nazruddin Nazruddin, Siti Bahirrah

Abstract


Background: Standard edgewise and preadjusted Roth are two bracket types widely used for orthodontic treatment. Whether one of these bracket types offers better treatment results than the other requires further evaluation. The Objective Grading System created by the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) is one of the most reliable indices used to evaluate treatment outcomes. Objectives: To determine the effects of using two different bracket types on treatment outcomes by using the Objective Grading System. Methods: The sample for this study consisted of 64 randomly selected post-treatment dental casts and panoramic radiographs. Of these samples, 32 were treated with a standard edgewise bracket, and the others were treated with a preadjusted Roth bracket. Patient samples were included if they had non-extraction Class I malocclusion (minor crowding < 4 mm for both bracket types, ANB = 2º ± 2º), no history of dental trauma, complete teeth (except third molars), and no growth or development disturbances. All samples were evaluated using eight parameters of the Objective Grading System and statistically analyzed using Mann–Whitney and chi-squared tests. The score range for each tooth in each parameter was 0 – 2. Results: The total score was 19.00 ± 12.00 for the standard edgewise bracket and 15.00 ± 7.00 for the preadjusted Roth bracket, with no statistically significant differences between the two bracket types (p = 0.149). There were also no statistically significant differences in the scores of the eight parameters of the Objective Grading System between these brackets (p > 0.05). The highest score was found for the buccolingual inclination parameter, and the lowest score was for interproximal contacts. Conclusion: According to the Objective Grading System, there are no statistically significant differences between the orthodontic treatment outcomes obtained using a standard edgewise or a preadjusted Roth bracket.


Keywords


brackets; orthodontics; objective grading system

Full Text:

PDF

Article Metrics

Abstract views : 729| PDF views : 0

References


Bhalajhi SI. Orthodontics: The Art and Science. 5th ed. Arya Medi Publishing House; 2012.Chapter 26, Fixed Appliances; p.389-422.

Vaden JL, Klontz HA, Dale. Standard Edgewise: Tweed-Merrifield Philosophy, Diagnosis, Treatment Planning, and Force Systems. In Graber LW, Vanarsdall R, Vig KWL. Editors. Orthodontics Current Principles and Techniques. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby, 2011; p.517-34.

McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Evolution of treatment mechanics and contemporary appliance design in orthodontics: a 40-year perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2015 Jun; 147(6): 654-62. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.03.012

Samawi SS. Straight wire orthodontics: a short guide to principles and technique. 1st ed. Samawi Dental and Orthodontic Center; 2014.

McLaughlin R, Bennett J, Trevisi H. Practical Techniques for Achieving Improved Accuracy in Bracket Positioning. Orthodontic Prespective. 1999;4(1). Available from: http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/698231O/orthodontic-perspectives-reprints-mbt-system.pdf

Spena R. Upper and lower incisor torque and straight wire appliance. SIDO J. 2014 Jan: 21-32.

Soltani M, Saedi B, Mohammadi Z. Outcome of MBT and standard Edgewise techniques in treating Class I malocclusion. Avicenna J Dent Res. 2012; 4(2): 61-5.

Norena OZ, Florez AC, Liz DB. Orthodontic treatment results evaluated for individual teeth according to the objective grading system. J World Fed Orthod. 2017; 6: 6-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2017.02.002

Cansunar HA, Uysal T. Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in nonextraction, 2 maxillary premolar extraction, and 4 premolar extraction protocols with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 May; 145(5): 595-602. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.11.022

Carvajal-Flórez A, Barbosa-Lis DM, Zapata-Noreña OA, Marín-Velásquez JA, Afanador-Bayona SA. Orthodontic treatment outcomes obtained by application of a finishing protocol. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016; 21(2): 88-94. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.21.2.088-094.oar

Mislik B, Konstantonis D, Katsadouris A, Eliades T. University clinic and private practice treatment outcomes in Class I extraction and nonextraction patients: a comparative study with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016; 149(2): 253-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.012

Jain M, Varghese J, Mascarenhas R, Mogra S, Shetty S, Dhakar N. Asessment of clinical outcomes of Roth and MBT bracket prescription using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System.Contemp Clin Dent. 2013 Jul;4(3):307-12. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.118361

Anthopoulou C, Konstantonis D, Makou M. Treatment outcomes after extraction and non extraction treatment evaluated with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014; 146(6): 717-23. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.025

Harradine N. Self-Ligating Brackets: Theory, Practice, and Evidence. In Graber LW, Vanarsdall R, Vig KWL. Editors. Orthodontics Current Principles and Techniques. 5th ed. Philadelphia: Mosby, 2011; p.581-614.

Patni VR, Ajmera A, Agrawal P, Somwanshi S. Evolution of orthodontic brackets. Int. J. of Allied Med. Sci. and Clin. Research. 2016; 4(3): 566-8.

The American Board of Orthodontics. Grading system for dental casts and panoramicradiographs. 2012 June:1-22. Available from: https://www.americanboardortho.com/media/1191/grading-system-casts-radiographs.pdf

Rukiah BA, Oeripto A, Harahap N. [A Comparison of class I malocclusion treatment outcomes with and without extractions using an ABO grading system for dental casts and radiographs]. Majalah Kedokteran Gigi 2017 Sep; 50(3): 144-8. Indonesia

Awasthi E, Sharma N, Shrivastav S, Kamble RH. Evaluation and comparison of various prescription specifications and slot distortion of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets manufactured by different companies available in India. Int J Cur Res Rev. 2015; 7(9): 44-51.

Streva AM, Ferreira FA, Garib DG, Carvalho PE. Are torque values of preadjusted brackets precise?. J Appl Oral Sci. 2010; 19(4): 313-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572011005000003

Filho LC, Machado F, Ozawa TO, Cavassan A, Cardoso M. Bracket/wire play: what to expect from tipping prescription on pre-adjusted appliances. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012 Jul-Aug; 17(4): 85-95. DOI: 10.1590/S2176-94512012000400018




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26912/sdj.v3i1.3634

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2019

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright of Scientific Dental Journal. (e-ISSN: 2541–321X, p-ISSN: 2580–6548)

Scientific Dental Journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Creative Commons License