Yasin Atakan BENKLİ, SÜLEYMAN KUTALMIŞ BÜYÜK, Serpil KOŞGİN

Alt çene ön bölge çapraşıklığa sahip olgularda iki farklı braket sisteminin kısa dönem etkilerinin değerlendirilmesi

Amaç: In-Ovation (self-ligating) ve Synergy (low friction) braketlerin mandibula ön bölge çapraşıklığın tedavi edilmesinde birbirlerine göre etkinliklerinin ve üstünlüklerinin, hastanın tedavi sürecinde hissettiği ağrının, dişsel genişlikler üzerine etkilerinin ve ark teli değişimi sırasında geçen sürenin karşılaştırılarak değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma, Ordu Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Ortodonti Anabilim Dalı’na başvurmuş mandibula anterior çapraşıklığı olan 32 hasta üzerinde yapılmıştır. Hastalar rastgele 2 gruba ayrılmıştır. Birinci gruptaki 16 hastanın (yaş ort. 16±1,41 yıl) tedavisi In-ovation, diğer gruptaki 16 hastanın (yaş ort. 15,45±2,02 yıl) tedavisi ise Synergy braketlerle yapılmıştır. Tedavi başında ve tedavi başladıktan 16 hafta sonra bütün hastalardan alt çene dental alçı modeller elde edilmiş ve modeller üzerinde interkanin, interpremolar, intermolar genişlikler, kanin, premolar, molar derinlikler ölçülmüş ve hayes-nance analizi yapılmıştır. Hastaların seviyeleme sırasındaki hissettikleri ağrı Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) yardımı ile ölçülmüştür. Hasta başında geçen süreyi değerlendirmek için tel değiştirme süreleri karşılaştırılmıştır. Gruplar arası karşılaştırmada bağımsız t testi, grup içi tekrarlı karşılaştırmalarda ise Friedman testi kullanılmıştır Bulgular: Her 2 braket interkanin, interpremolar, intermolar genişlik ve kanin, premolar, molar derinlik ölçümleri, hayes-nance analizi, VAS değerleri karşılaştırıldığında gruplar arasında bir farklılık bulunamamıştır. Synergy grupta ark teli değişimi sırasında geçen sürenin İnovation ile tedavi edilen gruba göre istatistiksel olarak anlamlı şekilde daha fazla olduğu bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Her iki braket sisteminin çapraşıklığı çözme, dental genişlik ve derinlik ölçümlerindeki değişimler ve hastanın tedavi sürecinde hissettiği ağrı açısından birbirlerine üstünlükleri bulunamamıştır. Bütün bu bilgiler ışığında, low friction (Synergy) braketlerin, self ligating (In-ovation) braketlere alternatif tedavi seçeneği olarak kullanılabileceği söylenebilir.

An assessment of short-term effects of two different bracket systems in mandibular anterior crowding

Aim: In-ovation (self-ligating) and synergy (low friction) brackets are compared with each other’s effectiveness and advantages, the pain experienced during the treatment process by the patient, the effects on dental widths, the duration of the arch wire change in the treatment of mandibular anterior crowding. Materials and Method: This study was performed on 32 patients with mandibular anterior crowding who were referred to the Orthodontics Department of Ordu University Dental Faculty. Patients randomly were divided into 2 groups. 16 patients were treated with In-ovation brackets (mean age 16±1.41 years) and 16 patients were treated with Synergy brackets (mean age 15.45±2.02 years). At the beginning of the treatment and 16 weeks after the treatment was started, dental cast models of the lower jaw were obtained from all patients and intercanine, interpremolar, intermolar widths, canine, premolars, molar depths were measured and hayes-nance analysis was made on the models. The pain experienced during the leveling was measured with the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) by the patients. The duration of the arch wire change was compared for the evaluation of the chair time. Independent t test was used in the comparison between the groups, and Friedman test was used in the intra-group repeated comparison. Results: No difference was found between the groups when intercanine, interpremolar, intermolar width and canine, premolar, molar depth measurements, hayes-nance analysis, VAS values were compared. The duration of the arch wire change was found statistically significantly more in Synergy group than In-ovation group. Conclusion: There was no statistically difference in amount of resolution crowding, changes in dental width and depth measurements, and pain experience by the patient during the treatment process between the two brackets systems.

PDF

___

1. Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007; 131: 395-399.
2. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clinical orthodontics and research 2001; 4: 228-234.
3. Badawi M, Toogood RW, Carey JP, Heo G, Major PW. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2008; 133: 721-728.
4. Morina E, Eliades T, Pandis N, Jager A, Bourauel C. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. The European Journal of Orthodontics 2008; 30:233-238.
5. Montasser MA, El-Bialy T, Keilig L, Reimann S, Jäger A. Force levels in complex tooth alignment with conventional and self-ligating brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2013; 143: 507-514.
6. Montasser MA, Keilig L, Bourauel C. An in vitro study into the efficacy of complex tooth alignment with conventional and self‐ligating brackets. Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research 2015; 18: 33-42.
7. Atik E, Ciğer S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients. Angle Orthodontist 2014; 84: 615-622.
8. 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. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2007; 132: 208-215.
9. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. The European Journal of Orthodontics 2009; 32: 248-253.
10. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2009; 136: 340-347.
11. Jones M, Chan C. The pain and discomfort experienced during orthodntic treatment: A randomized controlled clinical trial of two intial aligning arch wires. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1992; 102: 373-381.
12. Polat O, Karaman AI. Pain control during fixed orthodontic appliance therapy. The Angle Orthodontist 2005; 75: 214-219.
13. Abdelrahman, RSh, Al-Nimri KS, Al Maaitah EF. Pain experience during initial alignment with three types of nickel-titanium archwires: a prospective clinical trial. The Angle Orthodontist 2015; 85: 1021-1026.
14. Otasevic M, Naini FB, Gill DS, Lee RT. Prospective randomized clinical trial comparing the effects of a masticatory bite wafer and avoidance of hard food on pain asso ciated with initial orthodontic tooth movement. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 2006; 130: 6-9.
15. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2™ vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. The Angle Orthodontist 2006; 76: 480-485.
16. Fleming PS, Dibiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system: a randomized controlled clinical trial. The Angle Orthodontist 2009; 79: 46-50.
17. Scott P, Sherriff M, Dibiase AT, Cobourne MT. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: a randomized clinical trial. The European Journal of Orthodontics 2008; 30: 227-232.
18. Storey E. Force in orthodontics and its relation to tooth movement. Aust J Orthod 1952; 56: 11-18.
19. Quinn RS, Yoshikawa DK. A reassessment of force magnitude in orthodontics. American Journal of Orthodontics 1985; 88: 252-260.
20. Oppenheim A. A possibility for physiologic orthodontic movement. American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery 1944; 30: 345-368.
21. Nikolai RJ. On optimum orthodontic force theory as applied to canine retraction. American Journal of Orthodontics 1975; 68: 290-302.
22. Hixon EH, Atikian H, Callow GE, McDonald HW, Tacy RJ. Optimal force, differential force, and anchorage. American Journal of Orthodontics 1969; 55: 437-457.
23. Reitan K. Effects of force magnitude and direction of tooth movement on different alveolar bone types. The Angle Orthodontist 1964; 34: 244-255.
24. Schwarz AM. Tissue changes incidental to orthodontic tooth movement. International Journal of Orthodontia, Oral Surgery and Radiography 1932; 18: 331-352.
25. Oppenheim A. Human tissue response to orthodontic intervention of short and long duration. American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral Surgery 1942; 28: 263-301.
26. Reitan K. Clinical and histologic observations on tooth movement during and after orthodontic treatment. American Journal of Orthodontics 1967; 53: 721-745.
27. Parvizi F, Rock WP. The load/deflection characteristics of thermally activated orthodontic archwires. The European Journal of Orthodontics 2003; 25: 417-421.
28. Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 1994; 106: 472-480.
29. Berger J, Byloff FK. The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 2001; 35: 304-310.