ABSTRACT
Self-ligating brackets engage the wire by means of a slide mechanism. Forces that have to be applied to open and close the sliding mechanism of brackets are still unknown. Objective The aim of this study was to measure and compare the opening and closure forces of different self-ligating brackets. Material and Methods Three different stainless steel self-ligating brackets (Carriere LX, Ortho Organizers; F1000, Leone; Damon Q, Ormco) were tested. For each different bracket, 20 maxillary right central incisors and 20 mandibular right central incisors were used. Opening and closure forces were measured using an Instron Universal Testing Machine. Statistical analysis was performed and ANOVA and Tukey tests were carried out. Results Opening forces were registered between 1.1 N and 5.6 N, whereas closure forces were recorded between 1.57 N and 4.87 N. Significant differences were detected among the different brackets and between the two prescriptions tested. Conclusion The knowledge of different opening and closure forces of self-ligating brackets can help the orthodontist in the clinical management of these devices. .
Subject(s)
Orthodontic Appliance Design , Orthodontic Brackets , Analysis of Variance , Biomechanical Phenomena , Materials Testing , Reference Values , Stainless Steel , Statistics, NonparametricABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Lingual orthodontics is becoming more popular in dental practice. The purpose of the present investigation was to compare plaque formation on teeth bonded with the same bracket onto buccal or lingual surface, with non-bonded control teeth, via an in vivo growth experiment over a 30-day period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial with split-mouth design was set up enrolling 20 dental students. Within each subject sites with buccal and lingual brackets and control sites were followed. Clinical periodontal parameters (periodontal pocket depth: PPD; bleeding on probing: BOP) were recorded at baseline and on days 1, 7 and 30. Microbiological samples were taken from the brackets and the teeth on days 1, 7 and 30 to detect colony-forming units (CFU). Total CFU, streptococci CFU and anaerobe CFU were measured. RESULTS: No significant differences (P>0.05) were found between buccal and lingual brackets in terms of clinical periodontal parameters and microbiological values. Conclusion: Bracket position does not have significant impact on bacterial load and on periodontal parameters.