Buccal Bone Changes With Self Ligating Brackets Versus Conventional Brackets. A
Comparative Study
Thesis
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the
Graduate School of The Ohio State University
By
Sahira Ibrahim Kortam, B.D.S., M.Sc.
Graduate Program in Dentistry
The Ohio State University
2010
Master‟s Examination Committee:
Dr. Do-Gyoon Kim, Advisor
Dr. Henry Fields
Dr. Martin Palomo
Dr. William Johnston
Copyright by
Sahira Ibrahim Kortam
2010
ii
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Self ligating brackets (SLB) manufacturers claim that expansion of arches and
alveolar bone building is facilitated by their bracket design. The objective of this study was to
determine whether SLB brackets have a different effect on buccal bone changes compared with
conventional brackets (NSLB) during orthodontic treatment. Methods: Cone beam computed
tomography (CBCT) images were obtained before and after treatment of 45 patients (26 treated with
conventional brackets (NSLB) and 19 with SLB). The CBCT images were compared between
groups for buccal bone height and thickness at the maxillary first molars, maxillary second and first
premolars using imaging software. The intermolar distance and buccolingual angulation were
assessed for the maxillary first molars as potentially confounding factors. Differences for each
variable measured before and after treatment were compared between the two groups. Results:
Initial and final thickness and height of buccal bone were significantly different between the teeth (p
<0.001). The buccal bone height (p <0.001) and thickness (p= 0.018) significantly decreased after
treatment for both groups. The mean changes of buccal bone height and thickness measured were not
significantly different between SLB and NSLB groups (p>0.05). The intermolar distance and molar
angulation changes were not significantly different between the 2 groups (p >0.05). The change in
bone height depended on the initial bone thickness where the greater the initial bone thickness, the
less the decrease in bone height (p <0.01). The change in bone thickness was affected by the change
iii
in intermolar distance where the bone thickness decreased when the intermolar distance increased (p
<0.01). Conclusions: The buccal bone changes during orthodontic treatment regardless of which
bracket type is used. Based on these data and those from RME studies, the implication is that, in the
absence of other data, there is a trend that increased arch dimensions may lead to adverse bony
changes depending on the patient‟s initial bony status. Arch expansion and molar angulation can be
similarly controlled by either type of appliance.
iv
Dedicated to my family
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my Thesis committee, Dr. Do-Gyoon Kim, Dr. Henry Fields, Dr.
Martin Palomo and Dr. William Johnson for their time and tremendous effort.
I would like to thank faculty, residents and staff of Case Western Reserve University for their
tireless support in gathering data and making this project successful.
I would like to thank the faculty, residents and staff of The Ohio State University Section of
Orthodontics.
I would like to thank Paul Geuy for his diligent work in helping with the measurements.
I would like to recognize the financial support for this research provided by the Dental
Master‟s Thesis Award Program sponsored by Delta Dental Foundation which is the philanthropic
affiliate of Delta Dental of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their love and support over the years.
vi
VITA
Feb. 8, 1974…………………………Born- Cairo, Egypt
1998………………………………....B.D.S. Cairo University, Egypt
2005…………………………………M.Sc. Cairo University, Egypt
2007-present………………………Graduate Resident in Orthodontics
The Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Dentistry
Specialty: Orthodontics
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abstract………………………………………………………………...ii
Dedication……………………………………………………………...iv
Acknowledgments……………………………………………………..v
Vita…………………………………………………………………….vi
List of Tables…………………………………………………………...viii
List of Figures…………………………………………………………..ix
Chapters:
1. Introduction………………………………………………………..1
2. Materials and Methods…………………………………………….25
3. Manuscript……..…………………………………………………..30
4. Discussion and Conclusions………………………………………..53
Bibliography……………………………………………………………57
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
3.1 Demographic distribution of patients studied……………………………48
3.2 Means and standard deviations for the initial, final and change in bone
height… ………………………………………………………………….48
3.3 Means and standard deviations for the initial, final and change in bone
thickness …………………………………………………………………48
3.4 Means and standard deviations for the initial, final and change in intermolar
distance .………………………………………………………………….49
3.5 Means and standard deviations for the initial, final and change for molar
angulation…………………………………………..….…………………49
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
3.1 The orientation was set to be parallel to the occlusal plane of the first molar;
the cut was done at the level of the cementoenamel junction. The trough was
drawn to bisect the maxillary first molar..…………………………..………44
3.2 Buccal bone height and thickness measurements…………………………...45
3.3 Landmark identification for buccolingual angulation and intermolar distance
measurements……………………………………………………………….46
3.4 Buccolingual angulation and intermolar distance measurements…………...47
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Self ligating brackets (SLB) have received much popularity in the past few years. Many
manufacturers offer SLB indicating the increased demand of this product. They are not new in
orthodontics. They were introduced in the early 20th century with the „Russell Lock‟ edgewise
attachment being described in 1935.1 Some early SL brackets were the Ormco Edgelok (1972),
Forestadent Mobil-Lock (1980), Orec SPEED (1980), and “A” Company Activa (1986).2 Other
designs have appeared including the Time bracket in 1994, the Damon SL bracket in 1996, the
TwinLock bracket in 1998, and the Damon 2 and In-Ovation brackets in 2000.1 Currently, the
popular SLB are Damon, Time, Speed, SmartClip, and In-Ovation R.3
SLB have an inbuilt labial face, which can be opened and closed.
4 They are promoted on the
premise that elimination of ligatures reduces friction and allows for better sliding mechanics.
SLB can be dichotomized into those with a spring clip that can press against the archwire
(active) and those with a passive system of ligation, in which the clip, ideally, does not press against
the wire. However, the term “passive” is somewhat of a misnomer because it is passive only when
teeth are ideally aligned in 3 dimensions (torque, angulation, and inout), and an undersized wire
would not touch the walls of the bracket slot. Examples of active brackets are In-Ovation “R” (GAC
International, Bohemia, NY), SPEED (Strite Industries, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada), and Time
2
(American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis). Examples in the passive group are the Damon bracket
(Ormco.Glendora, Calif) and the SmartClip bracket (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif).3
Despite the presentation of much empirical and anecdotal evidence, no documented evidence
exists on the manufacturer's claims on the efficiency of self-ligating brackets in both, space closure
and torque control. This is particularly intriguing because of the contradictory demands involved in
the mechanotherapeutic setup for these cases, as space closure with sliding mechanics requires low
friction, whereas torque control necessitates the development of frictional forces between the wire
and the bracket slot walls.5
Various claims are made by SLB manufacturers. For example, some of these claims are
increased patient comfort, better oral hygiene, increased patient cooperation, less chair time, shorter
treatment time, greater patient acceptance, and expansion. Sound scientific evidence is needed
before we accept manufacturers‟ claims about SLB. Unfortunately, the evidence for most claims is
lacking.3
The Damon system claims that using biologically sensible forces which work with the body‟s
natural adaptive processes will create space naturally so most cases can be treated without extraction
and without the need for headgear or palatal expanders.
They also claim that posttreatment CT image shows transverse arch development and normal
alveolar bone on lingual and buccal surfaces. Low friction and low force are purported to be good
for physiologically rebuilding the alveolar bone.6
On the other hand, excessive expansion can force the teeth through the cortical plate.7 This
can ultimately cause bone dehiscence, and gingival recession.8
3
The three-dimensional capability of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) technology
makes it possible to assess alveolar bone loss for posterior teeth 9 where buccal bone defects can be
detected and quantified. 10
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Self ligating brackets (SLB) versus conventional brackets (NSLB)
Various researchers have conducted studies to investigate the differences between SLB and NSLB.
Frictional resistance:
Several investigators11,
12,13,
14,
15,
16,
17,
18,
19, 20,
21
found that SLB had lower frictional
resistance than conventional brackets.
Kusy and Whitley22
divided resistance to sliding into 3 components: (1) friction, static or
kinetic due to contact of the wire with bracket surfaces; (2) binding, created when the tooth tips or
the wire flexes so that there is contact between the wire and the corners of the bracket (3) notching,
when permanent deformation of the wire occurs at the wire-bracket corner interface. This often
occurs under clinical conditions. Tooth movement stops when a notched wire catches on the bracket
corner and resumes only when the notch is released.
Burrow23
in 2009 pointed out that the clinical advantage of reduced resistance to sliding
should be a reduction in the amount of time to align the teeth and close the spaces. Several clinical
studies found no evidence to support the claim of reduced treatment time with self-ligating
4
brackets.24,
25,
26,
1 He concluded that a binding and releasing phenomenon, not frictional resistance,
is the major determinant of how well bracketed teeth move along an archwire and that is about the
same with conventional and self-ligating brackets.
Treatment duration:
Several investigators assessed the treatment efficiency of SLB. Damon27
in 1998 stated that
the self-ligating bracket design allowed for rapid leveling because teeth drifted along the path of
least resistance with little or no friction between the bracket and slot of the wire. Thus, this system
was capable of increasing the appointment intervals, and possibly reducing the overall treatment
time.
Harradine2 in 2001 found that SLB cases required an average of four fewer months and four
fewer visits to be treated to an equivalent level of occlusal regularity as measured by the PAR scores.
Eberting et al28
in 2001 found an average reduction in treatment time of 6 months (from 31 to 25)
and 7 visits (from 28 to 21) for SLB patients compared with conventional ligation patients.
On the other hand, several clinical studies found no evidence to support the claim of reduced
treatment time with self-ligating brackets. Miles26
in 2005 concluded that SLB were no more
effective in reducing irregularity than NSLB. Miles et al25
in 2006 found that SLB were no better
during initial alignment than a conventional bracket. Also in 2007, Miles1 compared the rate of en-
masse space closure and found that there was no significant difference in the rate of en-masse space
closure between SLB and NSLB. Scott et al29
in 2008 concluded that SLB were no more efficient
than NSLB during tooth alignment. Hamilton et al30
in 2008 conducted a study to determine if self-
5
ligating brackets are more efficient. They concluded that SLB appear to offer no measurable
advantages in orthodontic treatment time, number of treatment visits and time spent in initial
alignment over NSLB. Fleming et al31
in 2009 concluded that efficiency of alignment in the
mandibular arch in nonextraction patients is independent of bracket type.
Torque control:
Pandis et al5 in 2006 found that self-ligating brackets were equally efficient in delivering
torque to maxillary incisors relative to conventional brackets in extraction and non-extraction cases.
Badawi et al32
examined the torque expression of 2 active self-ligating brackets (In-Ovation,
GAC, Bohemia, NY; Speed, Strite Industries, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada) and 2 passive self-
ligating brackets (Damon2, Ormco, Orange, Calif; Smart Clip, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) using a
bracket/wire assembly torsion device. They concluded that active self-ligating brackets were more
effective in torque expression than passive self-ligating brackets.
Morina et al33
in 2008 examined the torque expression of active and passive self-ligating
brackets compared with metallic, ceramic, and polycarbonate edgewise brackets. Six types of
orthodontic brackets were included in the study: the self-ligating Speed and Damon2, the stainless
steel (SS), Ultratrimm and Discovery, the ceramic bracket, Fascination 2, and the polycarbonate
bracket, Brillant. All brackets had a 0.022-inch slot size and were torqued with 0.019 x 0.025-inch
SS archwires. The ceramic bracket (Fascination 2) presented the highest torquing moment and,
together with a SS bracket, the lowest torque loss (4.6 degrees). Self-ligating, polycarbonate, and
6
selective metallic brackets demonstrated almost a 7-fold decreased moment developed during
insertion and a 100 per cent increase in loss.
Transverse dimensions:
Tecco et al34
in 2009 evaluated the transverse dimensions of the maxillary arch induced by
fixed self-ligating and traditional straight-wire appliances during orthodontic therapy. Forty
consecutive patients (age range 14 to 30 years) with normal or low mandibular plane angle, normal
overbite, and mild crowding were included. The traditional appliance was composed of Victory
Series MBT brackets (3M Unitek), and the self-ligating appliance of Damon-3MX brackets
(Ormco). Intercanine, first and second interpremolar, and intermolar widths in the maxilla were
recorded before treatment (T0) and 12 months later (T1). They found in both groups, a significant
increase was recorded for all transverse measurements from T0 to T1, but no significant difference
was observed between groups. They concluded that within 12 months of treatment, both appliances
increased maxillary dentoalveolar widths.
Other researchers investigated the mandibular dental arch changes. Mandibular arch
alignment resulted in transverse expansion and incisor proclination irrespective of the appliance
system used. However a statistically greater increase in intermolar width in the group treated with
the self-ligating appliance, the difference was only 0.91 mm by Fleming et al35
; 1.3 mm by Pandis et
al36
and 0.77 mm by Jiang and Fu37
. On the other hand, Scott et al29
found no significant difference
for either bracket system where their patients had premolar extractions.
7
Periodontal condition:
Pandis et al38
in 2008 investigated the periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior
dentition in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets to explore whether the use of self-
ligating brackets is associated with better values for periodontal indices because of the lack of
elastomeric modules and concomitantly, reduced availability of retentive sites for microbial
colonization and plaque accumulation. They concluded that the self-ligating brackets do not have an
advantage over conventional brackets with respect to the periodontal status of the mandibular
anterior teeth.
Pellegrini et al39
in 2009 examined plaque retention by self-ligating vs elastomeric
orthodontic brackets. They concluded that self ligating appliances promote reduced retention of oral
bacteria.
Pandis et al40
in 2010 investigated the salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients with
conventional and self-ligating brackets. No difference was found in the oral hygiene indices between
the two groups. The levels of S. mutans in whole saliva of orthodontically treated patients were not
significantly different between conventional and self-ligating brackets.
Systematic reviews:
Fleming and Johal41
in 2010 conducted a systematic review to evaluate the clinical
differences (alleviation of irregularity using Little‟s irregularity index, rate of orthodontic space
closure, dimensional changes during orthodontic alignment, plaque retention, extent of root
resorption developing during treatment, and attachment debond rate) in relation to the use of self-
8
ligating brackets in orthodontics. They concluded that at this stage there is insufficient high-quality
evidence to support the use of self-ligating fixed orthodontic appliances over conventional appliance
systems or vice versa.
Ehsani et al42
in 2009 conducted a systematic review on frictional resistance in self-ligating
orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets in vitro. They concluded that compared
with conventional brackets, self-ligating brackets produce lower friction when coupled with small
round archwires in the absence of tipping and/or torque in an ideally aligned arch. Sufficient
evidence was not found to claim that with large rectangular wires, in the presence of tipping and/or
torque and in arches with considerable malocclusion, self-ligating brackets produce lower friction
compared with conventional brackets.
Rapid maxillary expansion studies and buccal bone
The effect of rapid maxillary expansion on buccal bone has been investigated utilizing
computed tomography.
Ballanti et al43
in 2009 investigated by low-dose computed tomography (CT) protocol the
dental and periodontal effects of rapid maxillary expansion (RME). Their sample comprised 17
subjects (7 males and 10 females), with a mean age of 11.2 years. Each patient underwent expansion
of 7 mm. Multislice CT scans were taken before rapid palatal expansion (T0), at the end of the active
expansion phase (T1), and after a retention period of 6 months (T2). All interdental transverse
measurements were significantly increased at both T1 and T2 with respect to T0. In the evaluation of
T0-T1 changes, a significant reduction in buccal alveolar bone thickness of maxillary molars with
9
the greatest amount of bone resorption being 0.4mm. In the evaluation of changes between the end
of active expansion (T1) and the end of retention (T2), and of overall T0-T2 changes, periodontal
measurements were significant on the lingual aspects, but not on the buccal side.
Rungcharassaeng et al44
in 2007 used cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images to
determine the factors that might affect buccal bone changes of maxillary posterior teeth after rapid
maxillary expansion. They found that buccal crown tipping and reduction of buccal bone thickness
and buccal marginal bone level of the maxillary posterior teeth are immediate effects of RME.
Factors that showed significant correlation to buccal bone changes and dental tipping were age,
appliance expansion, initial buccal bone thickness, and differential expansion, but rate of expansion
and retention time had no significant association.
Garib et al45
in 2006 examined the periodontal effects of rapid maxillary expansion with
tooth-tissue-borne and tooth-borne expanders by computed tomography. Their sample comprised 8
girls, 11 to 14 years old. The appliances were activated 7-mm. Spiral CT scans were taken before
expansion and after the 3-month retention period when the expander was removed. They found that
RME reduced the buccal bone plate thickness of supporting teeth 0.6 to 0.9 mm and increased the
lingual bone plate thickness 0.8 to 1.3 mm. RME induced bone dehiscences on the anchorage teeth‟s
buccal aspect where there was a significant reduction of alveolar crest level of 7.1 ± 4.6mm at the
first premolars and 3.8 ± 4.4 mm at the mesiobuccal area of the first molars. They found a negative
statistically significant correlation between the thickness of the buccal alveolar crest at treatment
onset and the alveolar crest level changes after expansion.
10
CBCT validity
Several studies have been conducted to examine the validity and reliability of linear and
angular measurements made on CBCT images. Others examined the ability of CBCT to detect
periodontal bone defects.
Kau et al46
in 2010 analyzed CBCT scans of 30 subjects using InVivoDental (Anatomage,
San Jose, Calif) software. They concluded that CBCT digital models are as accurate as OrthoCAD
digital models in making linear measurements for overjet, overbite, and crowding measurements.
Moreira et al47
in 2009 researched the precision and accuracy of maxillofacial linear and
angular measurements obtained by cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images. They utilized
15 dry human skulls that were submitted to CBCT. Linear and angular measurements based on
conventional craniometric anatomical landmarks, and were identified in CBCT images by 2
radiologists on two occasions, independently. Subsequently, physical measurements were made by a
third examiner using a digital caliper and a digital goniometer. Regarding accuracy tests, no
statistically significant differences were found from the comparison between the physical and
CBCT-based linear and angular measurements for both examiners. The mean difference between the
physical and 3D-based linear measurements varied from 0.04 to −0.27 mm. The highest difference
between the physical and 3D-based angular measurements was 2.76° and the lowest value was
−0.03%. They concluded that CBCT images can be used to obtain dimensionally accurate linear and
angular measurements from bony maxillofacial structures and landmarks.
Baumgaertel et al48
in 2009 investigated the reliability and accuracy of dental measurements
made on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) reconstructions. Thirty human skulls were
scanned with dental CBCT, and 3-dimensional reconstructions of the dentitions were generated. Ten
11
measurements (overbite, overjet, maxillary and mandibular intermolar and intercanine widths, arch
length available, and arch length required) were made directly on the dentitions of the skulls with a
high-precision digital caliper and on the digital reconstructions with commercially available
software. They concluded that dental measurements from CBCT volumes can be used for
quantitative analysis. They found a small systematic error, which became statistically significant
only when combining several measurements.
Stratemann et al49
in 2008 conducted a study to determine the accuracy of measuring linear
distances between landmarks commonly used in orthodontic analysis on a human skull using two
cone beam CT (CBCT) systems; the NewTom® QR DVT 9000 (Aperio
Inc, Sarasota, FL) and the
Hitachi MercuRay (Hitachi Medico Technology, Tokyo, Japan). For the CB MercuRay, the mean
absolute error to the gold standard caliper measurements for the human skull was 0.00±0.22 mm,
with a median of 0.01 mm and a range of –0.39 mm to 0.24 mm. The
error was slightly smaller in the
CB MercuRay than in the NewTom. They concluded that the volumetric data rendered with both
CBCT systems provided highly accurate data compared with the gold standard
of physical measures
directly from the skulls, with less than 1% relative error.
Mol and Balasundaram,9 in 2008 assessed the accuracy of NewTom 9000 cone beam
CT
images for the detection and quantification of periodontal bone defects in three dimensions. A
sample of 146 sites in 5 dry skulls provided the ground truth. Half of the sample had bone loss of at
least 3 mm. Measurements on the CBCT images were compared to measurements on a full mouth
X-ray series. They concluded that the NewTom 9000 cone beam CT scanner provides better
diagnostic and quantitative information on periodontal bone levels in three dimensions than
conventional radiography. The accuracy in the anterior aspect of the jaws is limited.
12
Misch et al10
in 2006 evaluated the accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for
periodontal defect measurements. Artificial osseous defects were created on mandibles of dry skulls.
CBCT scanning, periapical radiography (PA), and direct measurements using a periodontal probe
were compared to an electronic caliper that was used as a standard reference. All bony defects were
identifiable and measurable directly or with CBCT. In comparison, buccal and lingual defects could
not be measured with radiographs. They concluded that all three modalities are useful for identifying
interproximal periodontal defects and that compared to radiographs, the three-dimensional capability
of CBCT offers a significant advantage because all defects including buccal and lingual defects can
be detected and quantified.
Orthodontic treatment and periodontal condition
Huynh-Ba et al50
in 2010 analyzed the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in
relation to immediate implant placement. At the time of extraction of the tooth and after the tooth
had been removed, intra-operative measurements of the socket, including the width of the buccal and
palatal walls of the sockets were recorded. The width was measured 1mm apical to the alveolar crest
level. Premolars buccal bone thickness mean was 1.1mm (range: 0.5–3mm, SD 0.5mm).
The relationship between orthodontic treatment and the periodontal condition has been
investigated in various studies.
A systematic review by Bollen et al51
in 2008 found that subjects in the orthodontically
treated group had, on average, a pocket depth 0.3 millimeter deeper
than that of subjects in the
untreated groups. The mean alveolar bone loss was 0.13 mm greater among the groups that had been
13
orthodontically treated than among the groups that had not. The orthodontically
treated
group had
gingival recession 0.03 mm greater than did the untreated group.
Allais and Melsen52
in 2003 evaluated the association between the extent of labial movement
of the lower incisors and the prevalence and severity of gingival recession in orthodontically treated
adult patients. They analyzed study casts and intra oral slides of 300 adult patients. One hundred and
fifty pairs matched by age and sex were selected using simple random sampling. Although the
difference in prevalence of individuals with gingival recession among cases and controls was
statistically significant, no significant difference in the mean recession value could be found between
cases and controls. The mean value of the extent of recession of the four lower incisors amounted to
0.36 mm for treated subjects and 0.22 mm for the controls. This mean difference of 0.14 mm was not
clinically relevant. They recommended that labial movement of lower incisors is a valuable
alternative to extraction leading to no clinically relevant deterioration of the periodontium.
Janson et al53
in 2003 compared the heights of the alveolar bone crests among orthodontic
patients treated with either the standard edgewise technique, the edgewise straight-wire system, or
bioefficient therapy. These 3 groups were compared with an untreated control group. The first
premolars were extracted in every treated patient, and measurements were performed on bitewing
radiographs taken after a mean posttreatment period of 2.17 years. The distances from the AC to the
cementoenamel junction (CEJ) on the mesial and distal surfaces of the first molars and second
premolars and on the distal surface of the canines were measured. All treated groups had larger,
statistically significant CEJ-AC distances than the untreated group, primarily at the extraction areas.
14
Thomson54
in 2002 examined the long term outcomes of orthodontic treatment. According to
his findings, there were no significant differences in caries experience, periodontal disease
occurrence, or tooth loss between those who had and had not been treated by the age of 26.
Bondemark55
in 1998 investigated the periodontal condition for two groups of 20
adolescents, one treated orthodontically and one untreated, and followed them longitudinally for 5
years. The interdental alveolar bone level was estimated as the distance between the cementoenamel
junction and the alveolar bone crest on bite-wing radiographs of the upper and lower premolars and
molars on three occasions, the first at the start of treatment, the second after 2.8 years, and the third
at the end of the 5-year study period. At the start of this study, no significant difference in alveolar
bone level between treated and untreated groups was found. It was demonstrated that there was a
small but significant decrease in interdental alveolar bone support ranging between 0.1 and 0.5 mm
during the 5-year observation period both in the treated and untreated group. Neither group had any
sites with clinically significant bone loss, i.e., a distance > 2 mm between the cementoenamel
junction and the alveolar bone crest.
Jager et al56
in 1990 examined the long term influence of orthodontic mandibular arch
expansion therapy on the periodontal condition of the posterior teeth. 11 years after the end of
treatment, 31 former patients were compared with a control group of matched age and sex
distribution. They found some additional loss of periodontal attachment for the treated group,
however the differences were not considered to be of clinical significance.
Zachrisson and Alnaes57, 58
in 1973 and 1974 examined 51 patients with Cl II Div. 1
malocclusion treated with all first premolars extracted. The treatment duration was 19.1 months; the
15
mean age of the patients was 16.2 years. They selected 54 individuals to match the treated group.
The patients were examined 2 years after finishing orthodontic treatment. They clinically found the
orthodontic patients to demonstrate slightly but significantly more loss of attachment than the
control group. Radiographically the orthodontic patients showed more alveolar bone loss than did
the control group.
Statement of the Problem
Based on this review of the literature, several aspects of differences between SLB and NSLB
have been studied however there are no reports that investigated the difference in the buccal bone
changes between the SLB and NSLB. Several studies have investigated the buccal bone changes
with rapid maxillary expansion and indicated that bone loss occurs with expansion. Several clinical
studies indicate that orthodontic treatment can have a mild detrimental effect on the periodontium
but there is limited quantitative data. There are limited reports that compared the arch dimension
changes but none compared the angulation changes for the posterior teeth. This study will examine
the buccal bone changes and will investigate the difference in posterior arch dimensions and molar
angulation for the different types of brackets.
Specific Aim and Hypothesis to be tested
The specific aim is to compare the changes in buccal bone and buccal angulation of posterior
teeth after orthodontic treatment with SLB or conventional brackets and to determine if the change
in tooth position affects the buccal bone changes.
The first null hypothesis is that there is no difference between patients treated with SLB or
conventional brackets for buccal bone changes (buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness).
16
The second null hypothesis is that there is no difference between patients treated with SLB or
conventional brackets for buccal angulation of posterior teeth and intermolar distance.
The third null hypothesis is that the change in buccal angulation of posterior teeth and intermolar
distance does not affect the buccal bone changes (buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness).
References
1. Miles PG. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding
mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):223-5.
2. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001
Nov;4(4):220-7.
3. Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):216-22.
4. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod. 2003 Sep;30(3):262-73.
5. Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating
brackets: a prospective clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2006 Nov;9(4):193-8.
6. Yu YL, Qian YF. The clinical implication of self-ligating brackets. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue.
2007 Aug;16(4):431-5.
7. GEiger AM. Mucogingival problems and the movement of mandibular incisors: a clinical review.
Am J Orthod. 1980 Nov;78(5):511-27.
17
8. Engelking G, Zachrisson BU. Effects of incisor repositioning on monkey periodontium after
expansion through the cortical plate. Am J Orthod. 1982 Jul;82(1):23-32.
9. Mol A, Balasundaram A. In vitro cone beam computed tomography imaging of periodontal bone.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Sep;37(6):319-24.
10. Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal
defect measurements. J Periodontol. 2006 Jul;77(7):1261-6.
11. Berger JL. The influence of the SPEED bracket's self-ligating design on force levels in tooth
movement: a comparative in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Mar;97(3):219-28.
12. Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce
tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted bracket employing two
types of ligation. Eur J Orthod. 1993 Oct;15(5):377-85.
13. Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket
systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994 Nov;106(5):472-80.
14. Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self-ligating and conventional
orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod. 1997 Nov;24(4):309-17.
15. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J
Orthod. 1998 Jun;20(3):283-91.
18
16. Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of
two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with
elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod. 1998 Oct;20(5):589-96.
17. Loftus BP, Artun J, Nicholls JI, Alonzo TA, Stoner JA. Evaluation of friction during sliding
tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999
Sep;116(3):336-45.
18. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus conventional
stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Oct;120(4):361-70.
19. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Ricciardi A, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of
friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire
combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Oct;124(4):395-402.
20. Matarese G, Nucera R, Militi A, Mazza M, Portelli M, Festa F, et al. Evaluation of frictional
forces during dental alignment: an experimental model with 3 nonleveled brackets. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 May;133(5):708-15.
21. Cordasco G, Farronato G, Festa F, Nucera R, Parazzoli E, Grossi GB. In vitro evaluation of the
frictional forces between brackets and archwire with three passive self-ligating brackets. Eur J
Orthod. 2009 Dec;31(6):643-6.
19
22. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Influence of archwire and bracket dimensions on sliding mechanics:
derivations and determinations of the critical contact angles for binding. Eur J Orthod. 1999
Apr;21(2):199-208.
23. Burrow SJ. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: a critical review. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Apr;135(4):442-7.
24. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment
of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):208-15.
25. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets
during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006 May;76(3):480-5.
26. Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a
difference? Aust Orthod J. 2005 Nov;21(2):123-7.
27. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin
Orthod Res. 1998 Aug;1(1):52-61.
28. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction
comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res. 2001 Nov;4(4):228-34.
29. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating
and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 2008 Oct;134(4):470.e1,470.e8.
20
30. Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS, Murray K. Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and
conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Aust Orthod J. 2008 Nov;24(2):102-9.
31. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2
preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 May;135(5):597-602.
32. Badawi HM, Toogood RW, Carey JP, Heo G, Major PW. Torque expression of self-ligating
brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 May;133(5):721-8.
33. Morina E, Eliades T, Pandis N, Jager A, Bourauel C. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets
compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2008
Jun;30(3):233-8.
34. Tecco S, Tete S, Perillo L, Chimenti C, Festa F. Maxillary arch width changes during
orthodontic treatment with fixed self-ligating and traditional straight-wire appliances. World J
Orthod. 2009 Winter;10(4):290-4.
35. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during
alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2009 Sep;136(3):340-7.
36. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated
with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2009 Dec 3.
37. Jiang RP, Fu MK. Non-extraction treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets.
Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2008 Aug;43(8):459-63.
21
38. Pandis N, Vlachopoulos K, Polychronopoulou A, Madianos P, Eliades T. Periodontal condition
of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Orthod
Craniofac Res. 2008 Nov;11(4):211-5.
39. Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T, McLeod J, Covell DA,Jr, Maier T, et al. Plaque retention
by self-ligating vs elastomeric orthodontic brackets: quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and
detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2009 Apr;135(4):426.e1,9; discussion 426-7.
40. Pandis N, Papaioannou W, Kontou E, Nakou M, Makou M, Eliades T. Salivary Streptococcus
mutans levels in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2010
Feb;32(1):94-9.
41. Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 2010 May;80(3):575-
84.
42. Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El-Bialy TH, Flores-Mir C. Frictional resistance in self-ligating
orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2009
May;79(3):592-601.
43. Ballanti F, Lione R, Fanucci E, Franchi L, Baccetti T, Cozza P. Immediate and post-retention
effects of rapid maxillary expansion investigated by computed tomography in growing patients.
Angle Orthod. 2009 Jan;79(1):24-9.
22
44. Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, Kim J, Taylor G. Factors affecting buccal bone
changes of maxillary posterior teeth after rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 2007 Oct;132(4):428.e1,428.e8.
45. Garib DG, Henriques JF, Janson G, de Freitas MR, Fernandes AY. Periodontal effects of rapid
maxillary expansion with tooth-tissue-borne and tooth-borne expanders: a computed tomography
evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jun;129(6):749-58.
46. Kau CH, Littlefield J, Rainy N, Nguyen JT, Creed B. Evaluation of CBCT Digital Models and
Traditional Models Using the Little's Index. Angle Orthod. 2010 May;80(3):435-9.
47. Moreira CR, Sales MA, Lopes PM, Cavalcanti MG. Assessment of linear and angular
measurements on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. Oral Surg Oral Med
Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Apr 20.
48. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam
computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009
Jul;136(1):19,25; discussion 25-8.
49. Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC. Comparison of cone beam
computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008
Feb;37(2):80-93.
23
50. Huynh-Ba G, Pjetursson BE, Sanz M, Cecchinato D, Ferrus J, Lindhe J, et al. Analysis of the
socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate implant placement. Clin
Oral Implants Res. 2010 Jan;21(1):37-42.
51. Bollen AM, Cunha-Cruz J, Bakko DW, Huang GJ, Hujoel PP. The effects of orthodontic therapy
on periodontal health: a systematic review of controlled evidence. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008
Apr;139(4):413-22.
52. Allais D, Melsen B. Does labial movement of lower incisors influence the level of the gingival
margin? A case-control study of adult orthodontic patients. Eur J Orthod. 2003 Aug;25(4):343-52.
53. Janson G, Bombonatti R, Brandao AG, Henriques JF, de Freitas MR. Comparative radiographic
evaluation of the alveolar bone crest after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2003 Aug;124(2):157-64.
54. Thomson WM. Orthodontic treatment outcomes in the long term: findings from a longitudinal
study of New Zealanders. Angle Orthod. 2002 Oct;72(5):449-55.
55. Bondemark L. Interdental bone changes after orthodontic treatment: a 5-year longitudinal study.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Jul;114(1):25-31.
56. Jager A, Polley J, Mausberg R. Effects of orthodontic expansion of the mandibular arch on the
periodontal condition of the posterior teeth. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z. 1990 Feb;45(2):113-5.
57. Zachrisson BU, Alnaes L. Periodontal condition in orthodontically treated and untreated
individuals. II. Alveolar bone loss: radiographic findings. Angle Orthod. 1974 Jan;44(1):48-55.
24
58. Zachrisson BU, Alnaes L. Periodontal condition in orthodontically treated and untreated
individuals. I. Loss of attachment, gingival pocket depth and clinical crown height. Angle Orthod.
1973 Oct;43(4):402-11.
25
CHAPTER 2
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Human Subjects Approval
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Ohio State University,
Columbus, OH (OSU protocol number: 2008H0210). In addition; the research was approved for the
inclusion of children, waiver of the consent process, and waiver of HIPAA Research Authorization
throughout the entire research study.
Patient Selection
The CBCT images before and after treatment of fifty patients were obtained from a university
graduate clinic. The patients were treated with full fixed appliances-- either SLB or NSLB. A
sensitivity power analysis was compled using G power software.9,
10
A sample size of 45 patients
had 85% power and could detect a difference in intermolar distance of 1.5mm, molar angulation of
3.3⁰, bone height of 0.2mm and bone thickness of 0.2mm.
The exclusion criteria were patients who received RPE or headgear; patients with craniofacial
anomalies; patients with facial asymmetry or patients who had orthognathic surgery.
Forty five images (26 with NSLB and 19 with SLB) were analyzed because five images were
removed due to errors in the data set. The SLB used were Damon 3 (Ormco, Orange, California),
Smart clip (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California) and GAC Innovation R (GAC, Bohemia, NY). The
26
conventional brackets used were preadjusted edgewise twin bracket (3M Unitek; TP Orthodontics,
La Porte, IN).
The CBCT images were analyzed using Dolphin Imaging software (version 10.5 Dolphin
Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, CA).
1) Buccal bone height and bone thickness measurements (Fig. 2)
The pretreatment images were designated T1 and the post treatment images were designated
T2. The orientation tool was used where the image was first oriented from the front so that a
horizontal line connected hard tissue Orbitale to Orbitale. A vertical orientation line was constructed
perpendicular to the horizontal line at hard tissue Nasion.
For the measurements of the first molar, the orientation was set to be parallel to the occlusal
plane of the first molar with the cut at the level of the cementoenamel junction. The trough was
drawn to bisect the maxillary first molar mesiodistally and buccolingually (Fig. 1). Ten cross
sections with a thickness of 1mm and uniform spacing were made through the maxillary first molar
(M1), the second premolar (P2) and the first premolar (P1).The slice with the maximum bone
thickness was utilized for comparison.
To measure buccal bone height (BBH), the long axis of the buccal root (LA) was drawn from
the buccal cusp tip to the buccal root tip. At the most occlusal point where the bone was in contact
with the tooth, the first perpendicular line (PL1) was drawn to LA. The distance on the LA from the
PL1 to the cusp tip was the BBH. A second perpendicular line (PL2) was drawn where the buccal
bone curvature stabilized and reached a consistent maximum thickness. The distance from the root
surface to the bone surface on the second perpendicular line was the buccal bone thickness (BBT).
The distance on the LA from PL2 to the cusp tip represented the buccal bone thickness level (BTL)
27
and where the BBT of the post treatment (T2) image would be measured. The procedure was
repeated for the T2 measurements and BTL at T1 determined the position of PL2 on the T2 image
(Fig. 2). The same procedure was repeated for the measurements of the first and second maxillary
premolar.
The BBT change resulted by subtracting the T1 value from the T2 value; whereas the BBH
change was derived by subtracting the T2 value from the T1 value. Negative values of those changes
accounted for bone loss. This method of measurement was adopted from a previous study by
Rungcharassaeng et al.1
2) Intermolar distance (ID) measurement (Fig. 3)
From the axial section of the T1 images, at the crown level of the maxillary first molar, a cut
was made buccolingually at the center of the crown (determined both mesiodistally and
buccolingually) so that it passed through the greatest depth of the central fossae bilaterally. On the
coronal image derived from the cut, a line connecting the central fossae was drawn and the
measurement represented the intermolar distance (ID). The procedure was repeated for the T2
measurements, and their difference was the amount of dental expansion (positive) or constriction
(negative).
3) Molar angulation (MA) measurement (Fig. 3)
On the coronal image derived from the previous cut, lines were drawn from the central fossa to
the furcation area. The angle formed by the intersection of this line and a line tangent to the greatest
height of the palate represented the buccolingual inclination of the tooth. The procedure was
repeated for the T2 measurements, and their difference represented the amount of molar tipping. A
28
positive value represented buccal crown tipping and a negative value represented lingual crown
tipping.
The difference between SLB and NSLB were compared in terms of: initial, final and change in
buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness for the maxillary first molar, maxillary first and
second premolars; initial, final and change in intermolar distance and buccolingual angulation of the
maxillary first molars.
Statistical analysis
Ten CBCT images were randomly selected and remeasured at least 2 weeks apart to assess
intraexaminer reliability for bone height, bone thickness, intermolar distance and molar angulation
measurements.
The data were analyzed with SAS 9.2 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Means and
standard deviations were calculated for each parameter. The data was analyzed by the t-test,
ANOVA and ANCOVA.
ANOVA was used to detect the effect of the bracket type (SLB and NSLB), time, tooth (M1,
P2, P1) and side (right and left) on the measured parameters (buccal bone height and thickness,
intermolar distance and molar angulation).
T-tests was used to compare the difference between SLB and NSLB for initial, final and
change in buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness of the maxillary first molar, maxillary first
and second premolars, and for initial, final and change in intermolar distance and buccolingual
angulation of the maxillary first molars.
29
ANCOVA was used to determine if the change in buccal bone height, thickness, molar
angulation and intermolar distance depended on their respective initial values. ANCOVA was also
used to determine if the change in molar angulation and intermolar distance affected the change in
buccal bone thickness and height and whether the change in buccal bone height depended on the
initial buccal bone thickness. The significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses.
References
1. Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, Kim J, Taylor G. Factors affecting buccal bone changes
of maxillary posterior teeth after rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007
Oct;132(4):428.e1,428.e8.
30
CHAPTER 3
MANUSCRIPT
BUCCAL BONE CHANGES WITH SELF LIGATING BRACKETS VERSUS
CONVENTIONAL BRACKETS. A COMPARATIVE STUDY
AUTHORS:
Sahira Kortam, D.D.S., M.Sc.
Paul Geuy
William Johnston, PhD
Henry W. Fields, D.D.S., M.S., M.S.D.
Martin Palomo, D.D.S., M.S.D.
Do-Gyoon Kim, PhD
Dr. Kortam is a resident, The Ohio State University, College of Dentistry.
Paul Geuy is a student at The Ohio State University.
Dr. Johnston is a Professor, Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State
University, College of Dentistry.
Dr. Fields is Professor and Chair, Division of Orthodontics, The Ohio State University, College of
Dentistry.
31
Dr. Palomo is an Associate Professor, Program Director, Department of Orthodontics, Craniofacial
Imaging Center Director, Case Western Reserve University, School of Dental Medicine.
Dr. Kim is an Assistant Professor, Research Program Director, Division of Orthodontics, The Ohio
State University, College of Dentistry.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: Self ligating brackets (SLB) manufacturers claim that expansion of arches and
alveolar bone building is facilitated by their bracket design. The objective of this study was to
determine whether SLB brackets have a different effect on buccal bone changes compared with
conventional brackets (NSLB) during orthodontic treatment. Methods: Cone beam computed
tomography (CBCT) images were obtained before and after treatment of 45 patients (26 treated with
conventional brackets (NSLB) and 19 with SLB). The CBCT images were compared between
groups for buccal bone height and thickness at the maxillary first molars, maxillary second and first
premolars using imaging software. The intermolar distance and buccolingual angulation were
assessed for the maxillary first molars as potentially confounding factors. Differences for each
variable measured before and after treatment were compared between the two groups. Results:
Initial and final thickness and height of buccal bone were significantly different between the teeth (p
<0.001). The buccal bone height (p <0.001) and thickness (p= 0.018) significantly decreased after
treatment for both groups. The mean changes of buccal bone height and thickness measured were not
significantly different between SLB and NSLB groups (p>0.05). The intermolar distance and molar
angulation changes were not significantly different between the 2 groups (p >0.05). The change in
32
bone height depended on the initial bone thickness where the greater the initial bone thickness, the
less the decrease in bone height (p <0.01). The change in bone thickness was affected by the change
in intermolar distance where the bone thickness decreased when the intermolar distance increased (p
<0.01). Conclusions: The buccal bone changes during orthodontic treatment regardless of which
bracket type is used. Based on these data and those from RME studies, the implication is that, in the
absence of other data, there is a trend that increased arch dimensions may lead to adverse bony
changes depending on the patient‟s initial bony status. Arch expansion and molar angulation can be
similarly controlled by either type of appliance.
KEY WORDS: CBCT, self ligating, buccal bone, intermolar
INTRODUCTION
Self ligating brackets (SLB) have received much attention in the past few years and many
manufacturers now offer SLB, but they are not new in orthodontics. They were introduced in the
early 20th century with the „Russell Lock‟ edgewise attachment described in 1935.1 Some early SLB
were the Ormco Edgelok (1972), Forestadent Mobil-Lock (1980), Orec SPEED (1980), and “A”
Company Activa (1986).2 Other designs have appeared, but currently the popular SLB are Damon,
Time, Speed, SmartClip, and In-Ovation R.3
Various claims are made by SLB manufacturers. One of these possibilities is increased arch
dimension changes. Sound scientific evidence is required in order to accept manufacturers‟ claims
about SLB.
33
The Damon self ligating system claims that using biologically sensible forces which work with
the body‟s adaptive processes will naturally create space allowing most cases to be treated without
extraction and without the need for headgear or palatal expanders. They also claim that
posttreatment computed tomography (CT) images show transverse arch development and normal
alveolar bone on lingual and buccal surfaces. Low friction and low force are purported to be good
for physiologically rebuilding the alveolar bone.4
On the other hand, excessive expansion can force the teeth through the cortical plate.5 This can
ultimately cause bone dehiscence and gingival recession.6
The three dimensional capability of cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) technology
makes it possible to non-invasively assess alveolar bone changes for posterior teeth7 where buccal
bone defects can be detected and quantified.8
The objective of this study was to compare the difference between patients treated with SLB
and conventional brackets (NSLB) in regards to the changes in buccal bone height and thickness,
while monitoring buccolingual root angulation and intermolar distance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. The CBCT images before and
after treatment of fifty patients were obtained from a university graduate clinic. The patients were
treated with full fixed appliances either SLB or NSLB. A sensitivity power analysis was done using
G power software.9,
10
A sample size of 45 patients was used for 85% power that could detect a
34
difference in intermolar distance of 1.5mm, molar angulation of 3.3⁰, bone height of 0.2mm and
bone thickness of 0.2mm.
The exclusion criteria were patients who received RPE or headgear; patients with craniofacial
anomalies; patients with facial asymmetry or patients who had orthognathic surgery.
Forty five images (26 with NSLB and 19 with SLB) were analyzed because five images were
removed because of errors in the data set. The SLB used were Damon 3 (Ormco, Orange,
California), Smart clip (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California) and GAC Innovation R (GAC, Bohemia,
NY). The conventional brackets used were preadjusted edgewise twin bracket (3M Unitek; TP
Orthodontics, La Porte, IN).
The CBCT images were analyzed using Dolphin Imaging software (version 10.5 Dolphin
Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, CA).
1) Buccal bone height and bone thickness measurements (Fig. 2)
The pretreatment images were designated T1 and the post treatment images were designated
T2. The orientation tool was used where the image was first oriented from the front so that a
horizontal line connected hard tissue Orbitale to Orbitale. A vertical orientation line was constructed
perpendicular to the horizontal line at hard tissue Nasion.
For the measurements of the first molar, the orientation was set to be parallel to the occlusal
plane of the first molar with the cut at the level of the cementoenamel
junction. The trough was drawn to bisect the maxillary first molar mesiodistally and buccolingually
(Fig. 1). Ten cross sections with a thickness of 1mm and uniform spacing were made through the
maxillary first molar (M1), the second premolar (P2) and the first premolar (P1).The slice with the
maximum bone thickness was utilized for comparison.
35
To measure buccal bone height (BBH), the long axis of the buccal root (LA) was drawn from
the buccal cusp tip to the buccal root tip. At the most occlusal point where the bone was in contact
with the tooth, the first perpendicular line (PL1) was drawn to LA. The distance on the LA from the
PL1 to the cusp tip was the BBH. A second perpendicular line (PL2) was drawn where the buccal
bone curvature stabilized and reached a consistent maximum thickness. The distance from the root
surface to the bone surface on the second perpendicular line was the buccal bone thickness (BBT).
The distance on the LA from PL2 to the cusp tip represented the buccal bone thickness level (BTL)
and where the BBT of the post treatment (T2) image would be measured. The procedure was
repeated for the T2 measurements and BTL at T1 determined the position of PL2 on the T2 image
(Fig. 2). The same procedure was repeated for the measurements of the first and second maxillary
premolar.
The BBT change resulted by subtracting the T1 value from the T2 value; whereas the BBH
change was derived by subtracting the T2 value from the T1 value. Negative values of those changes
accounted for bone loss. This method of measurement was adopted from a previous study by
Rungcharassaeng et al.11
2) Intermolar distance (ID) measurement (Fig. 3)
From the axial section of the T1 images, at the crown level of the maxillary first molar, a cut
was made buccolingually at the center of the crown (determined both mesiodistally and
buccolingually) so that it passed through the greatest depth of the central fossae bilaterally. On the
coronal image derived from the cut, a line connecting the central fossae was drawn and the
measurement represented the intermolar distance (ID). The procedure was repeated for the T2
36
measurements, and their difference was the amount of dental expansion (positive) or constriction
(negative).
3) Molar angulation (MA) measurement (Fig. 3)
On the coronal image derived from the previous cut, lines were drawn from the central fossa to
the furcation area. The angle formed by the intersection of this line and a line tangent to the greatest
height of the palate represented the buccolingual inclination of the tooth. The procedure was
repeated for the T2 measurements, and their difference represented the amount of molar tipping. A
positive value represented buccal crown tipping and a negative value represented lingual crown
tipping.
The difference between SLB and NSLB were compared in terms of: initial, final and change in
buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness for the maxillary first molar, maxillary first and
second premolars; initial, final and change in intermolar distance and buccolingual angulation of the
maxillary first molars.
Statistical analysis
Ten CBCT images were randomly selected and remeasured at least 2 weeks apart to assess
intraexaminer reliability for bone height, bone thickness, intermolar distance and molar angulation
measurements.
The data were analyzed with SAS 9.2 software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Means and
standard deviations were calculated for each parameter. The data was analyzed by the t-test,
ANOVA and ANCOVA.
37
ANOVA was used to detect the effect of the bracket type (SLB and NSLB), time, tooth (M1,
P2, P1) and side (right and left) on the measured parameters (buccal bone height and thickness,
intermolar distance and molar angulation).
T-tests was used to compare the difference between SLB and NSLB for initial, final and
change in buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness of the maxillary first molar, maxillary first
and second premolars, and for initial, final and change in intermolar distance and buccolingual
angulation of the maxillary first molars.
ANCOVA was used to determine if the change in buccal bone height, thickness, molar
angulation and intermolar distance depended on their respective initial values. ANCOVA was also
used to determine if the change in molar angulation and intermolar distance affected the change in
buccal bone thickness and height and whether the change in buccal bone height depended on the
initial buccal bone thickness. The significance level of 0.05 was used for all statistical analyses.
RESULTS
The study included 45 patients; 18 males and 27 females with a mean age of 14.1 ± 1.3 years
and a range of 12-17 years. Twenty-six patients had NSLB and 19 had SLB. The demographic
distribution for the patients is presented in Table I.
The intraclass correlation coefficients for the bone thickness and bone height measurements
were 0.73 and 0.78, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficients for the intermolar distance
and molar angulation measurements were 0.88 and 0.81, respectively. The measurement error for the
bone thickness and bone height measurements were 0.32mm and 0.4mm, respectively. The
38
measurement error for the intermolar distance and molar angulation measurements were 0.8mm and
2.71,⁰ respectively.
The means and standard deviations for the buccal bone height, bone thickness, intermolar
distance and molar angulation at pretreatment (T1), post treatment (T2) and the change (T1-T2) are
shown in Table II through V.
The bone height significantly decreased after treatment for both bracket types (p <0.001). The
initial (p=0.183), final (p=0.184) and change (p=0.973) in bone height were not statistically
significantly different between the two bracket types. The change in bone height was not affected by
the initial bone height (p=0.187). Bone height (initial and final) was significantly different between
the maxillary first molar, second premolar and first premolar (p <0.001) regardless of bracket type.
There was no significant difference between right and left side for bone height (p=0.097).
The bone thickness significantly decreased after treatment for both bracket types (p= 0.017).
The initial bone thickness (p=0.021) and the final bone thickness (p=0.006) were significantly
different between the two bracket types (the initial and final bone thickness was less for the self
ligating bracket group) but the change (p=0.270) was not significantly different between the two
bracket types. The change in bone thickness was not affected by the initial bone thickness (p=0.652).
Bone thickness (initial and final) were significantly different between the maxillary first molar,
second premolar and first premolar (p <0.001) regardless of bracket type. There was a significant
difference between the right and left side for bone thickness (p= 0.022); the right side was greater.
The intermolar distance increased after treatment for both bracket types. The initial (p=0.130),
final (p=0.159) and change (p=0.719) in intermolar distance were not significantly different between
the 2 bracket types. The change in intermolar distance was affected by the initial intermolar distance
39
where the greater the initial intermolar distance, the lesser the change in intermolar distance
(p=0.007).
The molar angulation decreased after treatment for both bracket types. The initial (p=0.312),
final (p=0.489) and change (p=0.767) in molar angulation were not significantly different between
the two bracket types. There was no significant difference between right and left side for molar
angulation (p=0.220). The change in molar angulation was affected by the initial molar angulation
where the greater the initial molar angulation, the lesser the change in molar angulation (p=0.037).
The change in bone height did not depend upon the change in molar angulation (p=0.919) and
intermolar distance (p=0.402). The change in bone height depended on the initial bone thickness
(p=0.006) where the greater the initial bone thickness, the less the decrease in bone height.
The change in bone thickness was not affected by the change in molar angulation (p=0.748)
however it was affected by the change in intermolar distance (p=0.007) where the bone thickness
decreased when the intermolar distance increased.
DISCUSSION
Information from available CBCT images can provide noninvasive insight into the dynamics of
tooth movement. Various studies12,
13
have indicated that CBCT images can be used to obtain
accurate linear and angular measurements. Others14
found a small systematic error, which became
statistically significant only when combining several measurements.
The accuracy of CBCT images for the detection and quantification of periodontal bone defects
in three dimensions has been evaluated. Misch et al8 concluded that the three dimensional capability
40
of CBCT offered a significant advantage because all defects including buccal and lingual defects
could be detected and quantified. Mol and Balasundaram7 concluded that CBCT images provide
better diagnostic and quantitative information on periodontal bone
levels in three dimensions than
conventional radiography but the accuracy in the anterior aspect of the jaws was limited.
Our data represents baseline information for buccal bone height and thickness in cases of
comprehensive orthodontic treatment that can be compared to rapid maxillary expansion (RME)
studies.11,
15,
16
The initial bone height and thickness dimensions were comparable for the current
study and previous studies.11,
15,
16
This appears to verify the usual pretreatment status of posterior
buccal bone.
In a systematic review by Bollen et al
17, they suggested that orthodontic therapy was associated
with small amounts of alveolar bone loss, gingival recession and increased pocket
depth. Our
findings also showed small, but statistically significant buccal bone loss after orthodontic treatment,
most probably changes that would be considered clinically insignificant.
With rapid maxillary expansion, a significant amount of bone loss was reported by Garib et al15
who found that RME reduced the buccal bone plate thickness of supporting teeth 0.6 to 0.9 mm and
induced bone dehiscences on the buccal aspect where there was a significant reduction of alveolar
crest level of 7.1 ± 4.6 mm at the first premolars and 3.8 ± 4.4 mm at the mesiobuccal area of the
first molars. Rungcharassaeng et al11
found that buccal crown tipping and reduction of buccal bone
thickness and height of the maxillary posterior teeth were immediate effects of RME. Ballanti et al16
found a significant reduction in buccal alveolar bone thickness of maxillary molars with the greatest
amount of bone resorption being 0.4mm.
41
So, in cases where substantial and purposeful RME expansion was accomplished, a significant
amount of bone loss was reported. We found that increasing the intermolar distance minimally
would negatively affect the bone thickness. This appears to suggest there is a trend and relationship
between bone loss and increased transverse dimension. Without precise data for intervening
magnitudes of expansion, there is a need for care when decisively increasing posterior arch width,
regardless of the appliance used in order to avoid potential bone loss.
We found that the change in bone height depends on the initial bone thickness where the
greater the initial bone thickness, the less the decrease in bone height. This is in agreement with the
findings of Rungcharassaeng et al11
whose results suggest that buccal bone level was better
preserved with greater buccal bone thickness. Garib et al15
also found a negative correlation between
the thickness of the buccal alveolar crest at treatment onset and the alveolar crest level changes after
expansion.
The clinical significance of buccal bone loss is the accompanying gingival recession with
exposure of cementum that has been reported to occur at an early age on single or multiple teeth, and
can be associated with orthodontic treatment.6 Localized recession during orthodontic treatment has
been associated with excessive forces that have not permitted the repair and remodeling of the
alveolar bone.5 Gingival recession is always accompanied by bone dehiscence which can happen as
a result of uncontrolled expansion of teeth through the cortical plate.6 Pretreatment buccal bone
thickness appears to be a determining factor related to bone loss. In the absence of a practical means
to assess buccal bone thickness on a routine basis and given the potential for buccal bone loss as
noted above, again, it appears judicious to avoid aggressive transverse arch expansion.
42
Claims have been made that SLB can result in broader archforms than conventional brackets.18
We found that the maxillary intermolar width increased insignificantly for both the SLB group and
the NSLB group and there was no significant difference between the two brackets groups. Consistent
with this finding, Tecco et al19
found that both self ligating and traditional straight wire appliances
increased maxillary dentoalveolar widths but there was no significant difference between the groups
in patients with mild crowding.
We found no difference in controlling buccolingual angulation of the maxillary first molar
between the two bracket types. Other studies evaluated torque control for maxillary incisors where
Pandis et al20
found that SLB were equally efficient in delivering torque to maxillary incisors. On the
other hand, Morina et al21
found that the torque expression of SLB was less than conventional
brackets.
It does not appear that one appliance offers an advantage over the other in terms of changes in
buccal bone and control of molar angulation and intermolar distance when modest changes in arch
form are the goal and result. Based on these data and those from RME studies, the implication is
that, in the absence of other data, there is a trend that increased arch dimensions may lead to adverse
bony changes depending on the patient‟s initial bony status.
CONCLUSIONS
1. There is no difference between patients treated with SLB or conventional brackets for buccal
bone changes (buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness).
2. Buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness decrease significantly after treatment.
43
3. There is no difference between patients treated with SLB or conventional brackets for buccal
angulation of maxillary first molar and intermolar distance.
4. The change in bone height depends on the initial bone thickness where the greater the initial
bone thickness, the less the decrease in bone height.
5. The change in bone thickness is affected by the change in intermolar distance where the bone
thickness decreases when the intermolar distance increases.
44
LEGEND
Fig 1. The orientation was set to be parallel to the occlusal plane of the first molar; the cut was done
at the level of the cementoenamel junction. The trough was drawn to bisect the maxillary first molar.
45
Fig. 2 Buccal bone height and thickness measurements
46
Fig. 3 Landmark identification for buccolingual angulation and intermolar distance measurements
47
Fig. 4 Buccolingual angulation and intermolar distance measurements
48
Table I: Demographic distribution of patients studied
Type of bracket Number of patients
Gender
Male Female
Age
Mean ± SD
Treatment duration
Mean ± SD
NS 26 12 14 14.3 ± 1.3y 20.5 ± 3.6 m
S 19 6 13 13.7 ± 1.3y 19.5 ± 4.1 m
Overall 45 18 27 14.1 ± 1.3y 20.1 ± 3.8 m
NSLB: Conventional brackets, SLB: Self ligating brackets
Table II: Means and standard deviations for the initial, final and change in bone height (mm)
Type Tooth* T1 (Mean ± SD) T2 (Mean ± SD) Change (T1-T2)**
SLB M1
P2
P1
7.66 ± 0.57 7.78 ± 0.44 * -0.12 ± 0.28
7.90 ± 0.54 8.04 ± 0.54 -0.14 ± 0.20
8.78 ± 0.61 8.96 ± 0.62 -0.19 ± 0.16
NSLB M1
P2
P1
7.92 ± 0.65 8.04 ± 0.60 -0.11 ± 0.26
7.96 ± 0.59 8.08 ± 0.59 -0.12 ± 0.30
9.00 ± 0.71 9.23 ± 0.80 -0.23 ± 0.29
T1: Before treatment, T2: After treatment
SLB: Self ligating brackets, NSLB: Conventional brackets
M1: Maxillary first molar, P2: Maxillary second premolar, P1: Maxillary first premolar
* Significant difference between teeth
**Significant difference for the change
Table III: Means and standard deviations for the initial, final and change in bone thickness (mm)
Type Tooth * T1 (Mean ± SD)** T2 (Mean ± SD) † Change (T2-T1)
††
SLB M1
P2
P1
1.87 ± 0.43 1.79 ± 0.40* -0.08 ± 0.26
1.91 ± 0.42 1.75 ± 0.56 ** -0.16 ± 0.37
1.07 ± 0.40 0.96 ± 0.42 -0.11 ± 0.14
NSLB M1
P2
P1
2.21 ± 0.38 2.20 ± 0.46 -0.01 ± 0.21
2.22 ± 0.54 2.11 ± 0.49 -0.12 ± 0.34
1.16 ± 0.54 1.11 ± 0.47 -0.05 ± 0.30
T1: Before treatment, T2: After treatment
SLB: Self ligating brackets, NSLB: Conventional brackets
M1: Maxillary first molar, P2: Maxillary second premolar, P1: Maxillary first premolar
*Significant difference between teeth
** Significant difference for the initial values between SLB and NSLB † Significant difference for the initial values between SLB and NSLB
†† Significant difference for the change
49
Table IV: Means and standard deviations for the initial, final and change in intermolar distance
(mm)
Type T1 (Mean ± SD) T2 (Mean ± SD) Change (Mean ± SD)
S 45.41 ± 2.47 45.56 ± 2.27 0.15 ± 1.39
NS 44.15 ± 2.86 44.48 ± 2.64 0.33 ± 1.83
T1: Before treatment, T2: After treatment
NSLB: Conventional brackets, SLB: Self ligating brackets
Table V: Means and standard deviations for the initial, final and change for molar angulation (⁰)
Type T1 (Mean ± SD) T2 (Mean ± SD) Change (Mean ± SD)
S 95.15 ± 2.59 94.77 ± 3.23 -0.38 ± 3.30
NS 93.96 ± 5.11 93.87 ± 5.39 -0.09 ± 3.22
T1: Before treatment, T2: After treatment
NSLB: Conventional brackets, SLB: Self ligating bracket
Acknowledgements
We would like to recognize the financial support for this research provided by the Dental
Master‟s Thesis Award Program sponsored by Delta Dental Foundation which is the philanthropic
affiliate of Delta Dental of Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana.
We would like to thank the Orthodontic Department at Case Western Reserve University for
providing us with the CBCT images needed for this study.
References
1. Miles PG. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding
mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):223-5.
50
2. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001
Nov;4(4):220-7.
3. Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):216-22.
4. Yu YL, Qian YF. The clinical implication of self-ligating brackets. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue.
2007 Aug;16(4):431-5.
5. GEiger AM. Mucogingival problems and the movement of mandibular incisors: a clinical review.
Am J Orthod. 1980 Nov;78(5):511-27.
6. Engelking G, Zachrisson BU. Effects of incisor repositioning on monkey periodontium after
expansion through the cortical plate. Am J Orthod. 1982 Jul;82(1):23-32.
7. Mol A, Balasundaram A. In vitro cone beam computed tomography imaging of periodontal bone.
Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008 Sep;37(6):319-24.
8. Misch KA, Yi ES, Sarment DP. Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for periodontal
defect measurements. J Periodontol. 2006 Jul;77(7):1261-6.
9. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for
correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods. 2009 Nov;41(4):1149-60.
51
10. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis
program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007
May;39(2):175-91.
11. Rungcharassaeng K, Caruso JM, Kan JY, Kim J, Taylor G. Factors affecting buccal bone
changes of maxillary posterior teeth after rapid maxillary expansion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 2007 Oct;132(4):428.e1,428.e8.
12. Moreira CR, Sales MA, Lopes PM, Cavalcanti MG. Assessment of linear and angular
measurements on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. Oral Surg Oral Med
Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009 Apr 20.
13. Stratemann SA, Huang JC, Maki K, Miller AJ, Hatcher DC. Comparison of cone beam
computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2008
Feb;37(2):80-93.
14. Baumgaertel S, Palomo JM, Palomo L, Hans MG. Reliability and accuracy of cone-beam
computed tomography dental measurements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009
Jul;136(1):19,25; discussion 25-8.
15. Garib DG, Henriques JF, Janson G, de Freitas MR, Fernandes AY. Periodontal effects of rapid
maxillary expansion with tooth-tissue-borne and tooth-borne expanders: a computed tomography
evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jun;129(6):749-58.
52
16. Ballanti F, Lione R, Fanucci E, Franchi L, Baccetti T, Cozza P. Immediate and post-retention
effects of rapid maxillary expansion investigated by computed tomography in growing patients.
Angle Orthod. 2009 Jan;79(1):24-9.
17. Bollen AM, Cunha-Cruz J, Bakko DW, Huang GJ, Hujoel PP. The effects of orthodontic therapy
on periodontal health: a systematic review of controlled evidence. J Am Dent Assoc. 2008
Apr;139(4):413-22.
18. Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: Do they deliver what they claim? Aust Dent J.
2009 Mar;54(1):9-11.
19. Tecco S, Tete S, Perillo L, Chimenti C, Festa F. Maxillary arch width changes during
orthodontic treatment with fixed self-ligating and traditional straight-wire appliances. World J
Orthod. 2009 Winter;10(4):290-4.
20. Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating
brackets: a prospective clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2006 Nov;9(4):193-8.
21. Morina E, Eliades T, Pandis N, Jager A, Bourauel C. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets
compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2008
Jun;30(3):233-8.
53
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Information from available CBCT images can provide noninvasive insight into the dynamics of
tooth movement. Various studies1,
2 have indicated that CBCT images can be used to obtain accurate
linear and angular measurements. Others3 found a small systematic error, which became statistically
significant only when combining several measurements.
The accuracy of CBCT images for the detection and quantification of periodontal bone defects
in three dimensions has been evaluated. Misch et al4 concluded that the three dimensional capability
of CBCT offered a significant advantage because all defects including buccal and lingual defects
could be detected and quantified. Mol and Balasundaram5 concluded that CBCT images provide
better diagnostic and quantitative information on periodontal bone
levels in three dimensions than
conventional radiography but the accuracy in the anterior aspect of the jaws was limited.
Our data represents baseline information for buccal bone height and thickness in cases of
comprehensive orthodontic treatment that can be compared to rapid maxillary expansion (RME)
studies.6,
7,
8 The initial bone height and thickness dimensions were comparable for the current study
and previous studies.6,
7,
8 This appears to verify the usual pretreatment status of posterior buccal
bone.
54
In a systematic review by Bollen et al
9, they suggested that orthodontic therapy was associated
with small amounts of alveolar bone loss, gingival recession and increased pocket
depth. Our
findings also showed small, but statistically significant buccal bone loss after orthodontic treatment,
most probably changes that would be considered clinically insignificant.
With rapid maxillary expansion, a significant amount of bone loss was reported by Garib et al7
who found that RME reduced the buccal bone plate thickness of supporting teeth 0.6 to 0.9 mm and
induced bone dehiscences on the buccal aspect where there was a significant reduction of alveolar
crest level of 7.1 ± 4.6 mm at the first premolars and 3.8 ± 4.4 mm at the mesiobuccal area of the
first molars. Rungcharassaeng et al6 found that buccal crown tipping and reduction of buccal bone
thickness and height of the maxillary posterior teeth were immediate effects of RME. Ballanti et al8
found a significant reduction in buccal alveolar bone thickness of maxillary molars with the greatest
amount of bone resorption being 0.4mm.
So, in cases where substantial and purposeful RME expansion was accomplished, a significant
amount of bone loss was reported. We found that increasing the intermolar distance minimally
would negatively affect the bone thickness. This appears to suggest there is a trend and relationship
between bone loss and increased transverse dimension. Without precise data for intervening
magnitudes of expansion, there is a need for care when decisively increasing posterior arch width,
regardless of the appliance used in order to avoid potential bone loss.
We found that the change in bone height depends on the initial bone thickness where the
greater the initial bone thickness, the less the decrease in bone height. This is in agreement with the
findings of Rungcharassaeng et al6 whose results suggest that buccal bone level was better preserved
with greater buccal bone thickness. Garib et al7 also found a negative correlation between the
55
thickness of the buccal alveolar crest at treatment onset and the alveolar crest level changes after
expansion.
The clinical significance of buccal bone loss is the accompanying gingival recession with
exposure of cementum that has been reported to occur at an early age on single or multiple teeth, and
can be associated with orthodontic treatment.10
Localized recession during orthodontic treatment
has been associated with excessive forces that have not permitted the repair and remodeling of the
alveolar bone.11
Gingival recession is always accompanied by bone dehiscence which can happen as
a result of uncontrolled expansion of teeth through the cortical plate.10
Pretreatment buccal bone
thickness appears to be a determining factor related to bone loss. In the absence of a practical means
to assess buccal bone thickness on a routine basis and given the potential for buccal bone loss as
noted above, again, it appears judicious to avoid aggressive transverse arch expansion.
Claims have been made that SLB can result in broader archforms than conventional brackets.12
We found that the maxillary intermolar width increased insignificantly for both the SLB group and
the NSLB group and there was no significant difference between the two brackets groups. Consistent
with this finding, Tecco et al13
found that both self ligating and traditional straight wire appliances
increased maxillary dentoalveolar widths but there was no significant difference between the groups
in patients with mild crowding.
We found no difference in controlling buccolingual angulation of the maxillary first molar
between the two bracket types. Other studies evaluated torque control for maxillary incisors where
Pandis et al14
found that SLB were equally efficient in delivering torque to maxillary incisors. On the
other hand, Morina et al15
found that the torque expression of SLB was less than conventional
brackets.
56
It does not appear that one appliance offers an advantage over the other in terms of changes in
buccal bone and control of molar angulation and intermolar distance when modest changes in arch
form are the goal and result. Based on these data and those from RME studies, the implication is
that, in the absence of other data, there is a trend that increased arch dimensions may lead to adverse
bony changes depending on the patient‟s initial bony status.
CONCLUSIONS
1. There is no difference between patients treated with SLB or conventional brackets for buccal
bone changes (buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness).
2. Buccal bone height and buccal bone thickness decrease significantly after treatment.
3. There is no difference between patients treated with SLB or conventional brackets for buccal
angulation of maxillary first molar and intermolar distance.
4. The change in bone height depends on the initial bone thickness where the greater the initial
bone thickness, the less the decrease in bone height.
5. The change in bone thickness is affected by the change in intermolar distance where the bone
thickness decreases when the intermolar distance increases.
57
LIST OF REFERENCES
Allais, D., & Melsen, B. (2003). Does labial movement of lower incisors influence the level of the
gingival margin? A case-control study of adult orthodontic patients. European Journal of
Orthodontics, 25(4), 343-352.
Badawi, H. M., Toogood, R. W., Carey, J. P., Heo, G., & Major, P. W. (2008). Torque expression of
self-ligating brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official
Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the
American Board of Orthodontics, 133(5), 721-728.
Ballanti, F., Lione, R., Fanucci, E., Franchi, L., Baccetti, T., & Cozza, P. (2009). Immediate and
post-retention effects of rapid maxillary expansion investigated by computed tomography in
growing patients. The Angle Orthodontist, 79(1), 24-29.
Baumgaertel, S., Palomo, J. M., Palomo, L., & Hans, M. G. (2009a). Reliability and accuracy of
cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its
Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 136(1), 19-25; discussion 25-8.
Baumgaertel, S., Palomo, J. M., Palomo, L., & Hans, M. G. (2009b). Reliability and accuracy of
cone-beam computed tomography dental measurements. American Journal of Orthodontics and
58
Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its
Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 136(1), 19-25; discussion 25-8.
Berger, J. L. (1990). The influence of the SPEED bracket's self-ligating design on force levels in
tooth movement: A comparative in vitro study. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its
Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 97(3), 219-228.
Bollen, A. M., Cunha-Cruz, J., Bakko, D. W., Huang, G. J., & Hujoel, P. P. (2008a). The effects of
orthodontic therapy on periodontal health: A systematic review of controlled evidence. Journal
of the American Dental Association (1939), 139(4), 413-422.
Bollen, A. M., Cunha-Cruz, J., Bakko, D. W., Huang, G. J., & Hujoel, P. P. (2008b). The effects of
orthodontic therapy on periodontal health: A systematic review of controlled evidence. Journal
of the American Dental Association (1939), 139(4), 413-422.
Bondemark, L. (1998). Interdental bone changes after orthodontic treatment: A 5-year longitudinal
study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of
the American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of
Orthodontics, 114(1), 25-31.
Burrow, S. J. (2009). Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: A critical review. American
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American
Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of
Orthodontics, 135(4), 442-447.
59
Cacciafesta, V., Sfondrini, M. F., Ricciardi, A., Scribante, A., Klersy, C., & Auricchio, F. (2003).
Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-
archwire combinations. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics :
Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and
the American Board of Orthodontics, 124(4), 395-402.
Cordasco, G., Farronato, G., Festa, F., Nucera, R., Parazzoli, E., & Grossi, G. B. (2009). In vitro
evaluation of the frictional forces between brackets and archwire with three passive self-ligating
brackets. European Journal of Orthodontics, 31(6), 643-646.
Damon, D. H. (1998). The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket.
Clinical Orthodontics and Research, 1(1), 52-61.
Eberting, J. J., Straja, S. R., & Tuncay, O. C. (2001). Treatment time, outcome, and patient
satisfaction comparisons of damon and conventional brackets. Clinical Orthodontics and
Research, 4(4), 228-234.
Ehsani, S., Mandich, M. A., El-Bialy, T. H., & Flores-Mir, C. (2009). Frictional resistance in self-
ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets. A systematic review. The
Angle Orthodontist, 79(3), 592-601.
Engelking, G., & Zachrisson, B. U. (1982). Effects of incisor repositioning on monkey periodontium
after expansion through the cortical plate. American Journal of Orthodontics, 82(1), 23-32.
60
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using
G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4),
1149-1160.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power
analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research
Methods, 39(2), 175-191.
Fleming, P. S., DiBiase, A. T., Sarri, G., & Lee, R. T. (2009a). Comparison of mandibular arch
changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. American
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American
Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of
Orthodontics, 136(3), 340-347.
Fleming, P. S., DiBiase, A. T., Sarri, G., & Lee, R. T. (2009b). Efficiency of mandibular arch
alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its
Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 135(5), 597-602.
Fleming, P. S., & Johal, A. (2010). Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. The Angle Orthodontist,
80(3), 575-584.
Garib, D. G., Henriques, J. F., Janson, G., de Freitas, M. R., & Fernandes, A. Y. (2006). Periodontal
effects of rapid maxillary expansion with tooth-tissue-borne and tooth-borne expanders: A
computed tomography evaluation. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
61
Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent
Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 129(6), 749-758.
GEiger, A. M. (1980). Mucogingival problems and the movement of mandibular incisors: A clinical
review. American Journal of Orthodontics, 78(5), 511-527.
Hamilton, R., Goonewardene, M. S., & Murray, K. (2008). Comparison of active self-ligating
brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Australian Orthodontic Journal, 24(2), 102-
109.
Harradine, N. W. (2001). Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clinical Orthodontics and
Research, 4(4), 220-227.
Harradine, N. W. (2003). Self-ligating brackets: Where are we now? Journal of Orthodontics, 30(3),
262-273.
Huynh-Ba, G., Pjetursson, B. E., Sanz, M., Cecchinato, D., Ferrus, J., Lindhe, J., et al. (2010).
Analysis of the socket bone wall dimensions in the upper maxilla in relation to immediate
implant placement. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 21(1), 37-42.
Jager, A., Polley, J., & Mausberg, R. (1990). Effects of orthodontic expansion of the mandibular
arch on the periodontal condition of the posterior teeth. [Expansionstherapie des Unterkiefers
und Parodontalstatus] Deutsche Zahnarztliche Zeitschrift, 45(2), 113-115.
Janson, G., Bombonatti, R., Brandao, A. G., Henriques, J. F., & de Freitas, M. R. (2003).
Comparative radiographic evaluation of the alveolar bone crest after orthodontic treatment.
62
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the
American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of
Orthodontics, 124(2), 157-164.
Jiang, R. P., & Fu, M. K. (2008). Non-extraction treatment with self-ligating and conventional
brackets. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Zhonghua Kouqiang Yixue Zazhi = Chinese
Journal of Stomatology, 43(8), 459-463.
Kau, C. H., Littlefield, J., Rainy, N., Nguyen, J. T., & Creed, B. (2010). Evaluation of CBCT digital
models and traditional models using the little's index. The Angle Orthodontist, 80(3), 435-439.
Kusy, R. P., & Whitley, J. Q. (1999). Influence of archwire and bracket dimensions on sliding
mechanics: Derivations and determinations of the critical contact angles for binding. European
Journal of Orthodontics, 21(2), 199-208.
Loftus, B. P., Artun, J., Nicholls, J. I., Alonzo, T. A., & Stoner, J. A. (1999). Evaluation of friction
during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. American Journal of
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association of
Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 116(3), 336-
345.
Matarese, G., Nucera, R., Militi, A., Mazza, M., Portelli, M., Festa, F., et al. (2008). Evaluation of
frictional forces during dental alignment: An experimental model with 3 nonleveled brackets.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the
63
American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of
Orthodontics, 133(5), 708-715.
Miles, P. G. (2005). SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: Is there a
difference? Australian Orthodontic Journal, 21(2), 123-127.
Miles, P. G. (2007). Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with
sliding mechanics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official
Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the
American Board of Orthodontics, 132(2), 223-225.
Miles, P. G. (2009). Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: Do they deliver what they claim?
Australian Dental Journal, 54(1), 9-11.
Miles, P. G., Weyant, R. J., & Rustveld, L. (2006). A clinical trial of damon 2 vs conventional twin
brackets during initial alignment. The Angle Orthodontist, 76(3), 480-485.
Misch, K. A., Yi, E. S., & Sarment, D. P. (2006). Accuracy of cone beam computed tomography for
periodontal defect measurements. Journal of Periodontology, 77(7), 1261-1266.
Mol, A., & Balasundaram, A. (2008). In vitro cone beam computed tomography imaging of
periodontal bone. Dento Maxillo Facial Radiology, 37(6), 319-324.
Moreira, C. R., Sales, M. A., Lopes, P. M., & Cavalcanti, M. G. (2009). Assessment of linear and
angular measurements on three-dimensional cone-beam computed tomographic images. Oral
Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics,
64
Morina, E., Eliades, T., Pandis, N., Jager, A., & Bourauel, C. (2008). Torque expression of self-
ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. European
Journal of Orthodontics, 30(3), 233-238.
Pandis, N., Papaioannou, W., Kontou, E., Nakou, M., Makou, M., & Eliades, T. (2010). Salivary
streptococcus mutans levels in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. European
Journal of Orthodontics, 32(1), 94-99.
Pandis, N., Polychronopoulou, A., & Eliades, T. (2007). Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the
treatment of mandibular crowding: A prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental
effects. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication
of the American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board
of Orthodontics, 132(2), 208-215.
Pandis, N., Polychronopoulou, A., Makou, M., & Eliades, T. (2009). Mandibular dental arch
changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets.
European Journal of Orthodontics,
Pandis, N., Strigou, S., & Eliades, T. (2006). Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-
ligating brackets: A prospective clinical trial. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research, 9(4), 193-
198.
Pandis, N., Vlachopoulos, K., Polychronopoulou, A., Madianos, P., & Eliades, T. (2008).
Periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and
self-ligating brackets. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research, 11(4), 211-215.
65
Pellegrini, P., Sauerwein, R., Finlayson, T., McLeod, J., Covell, D. A.,Jr, Maier, T., et al. (2009).
Plaque retention by self-ligating vs elastomeric orthodontic brackets: Quantitative comparison
of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. American
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American
Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of
Orthodontics, 135(4), 426.e1-9; discussion 426-7.
Pizzoni, L., Ravnholt, G., & Melsen, B. (1998). Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets.
European Journal of Orthodontics, 20(3), 283-291.
Read-Ward, G. E., Jones, S. P., & Davies, E. H. (1997). A comparison of self-ligating and
conventional orthodontic bracket systems. British Journal of Orthodontics, 24(4), 309-317.
Rinchuse, D. J., & Miles, P. G. (2007). Self-ligating brackets: Present and future. American Journal
of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American Association
of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics, 132(2),
216-222.
Rungcharassaeng, K., Caruso, J. M., Kan, J. Y., Kim, J., & Taylor, G. (2007). Factors affecting
buccal bone changes of maxillary posterior teeth after rapid maxillary expansion. American
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the American
Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of
Orthodontics, 132(4), 428.e1-428.e8.
66
Scott, P., DiBiase, A. T., Sherriff, M., & Cobourne, M. T. (2008). Alignment efficiency of Damon3
self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: A randomized clinical trial.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official Publication of the
American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the American Board of
Orthodontics, 134(4), 470.e1-470.e8.
Shivapuja, P. K., & Berger, J. (1994). A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation
bracket systems. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official
Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the
American Board of Orthodontics, 106(5), 472-480.
Sims, A. P., Waters, N. E., Birnie, D. J., & Pethybridge, R. J. (1993). A comparison of the forces
required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted
bracket employing two types of ligation. European Journal of Orthodontics, 15(5), 377-385.
Stratemann, S. A., Huang, J. C., Maki, K., Miller, A. J., & Hatcher, D. C. (2008). Comparison of
cone beam computed tomography imaging with physical measures. Dento Maxillo Facial
Radiology, 37(2), 80-93.
Tecco, S., Tete, S., Perillo, L., Chimenti, C., & Festa, F. (2009). Maxillary arch width changes
during orthodontic treatment with fixed self-ligating and traditional straight-wire appliances.
World Journal of Orthodontics, 10(4), 290-294.
67
Thomas, S., Sherriff, M., & Birnie, D. (1998). A comparative in vitro study of the frictional
characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise
brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. European Journal of Orthodontics, 20(5), 589-596.
Thomson, W. M. (2002). Orthodontic treatment outcomes in the long term: Findings from a
longitudinal study of new zealanders. The Angle Orthodontist, 72(5), 449-455.
Thorstenson, G. A., & Kusy, R. P. (2001). Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus
conventional stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet
(saliva) states. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics : Official
Publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its Constituent Societies, and the
American Board of Orthodontics, 120(4), 361-370.
Yu, Y. L., & Qian, Y. F. (2007). The clinical implication of self-ligating brackets. Shanghai Kou
Qiang Yi Xue = Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 16(4), 431-435.
Zachrisson, B. U., & Alnaes, L. (1973). Periodontal condition in orthodontically treated and
untreated individuals. I. loss of attachment, gingival pocket depth and clinical crown height. The
Angle Orthodontist, 43(4), 402-411.
Zachrisson, B. U., & Alnaes, L. (1974). Periodontal condition in orthodontically treated and
untreated individuals. II. alveolar bone loss: Radiographic findings. The Angle Orthodontist,
44(1), 48-55.