ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this randomized prospective clinical study was to determine whether there are differences between customized lingual brackets and conventional labial brackets regarding the alignment of the mandibular arch and a reduction of the irregularity index during an 18-week treatment interval. METHODS: A total of 20 patients who presented with class I malocclusion for scheduled orthodontic treatment without tooth extraction were included. The patients were randomly assigned by numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes to treatment with customized lingual brackets or conventional labial brackets. During the initial alignment (T0), 0.012â³ (T1), 0.014â³ (T2), and 0.016â³ (T3) nickel-titanium archwires were applied, respectively, and the control visits were scheduled at 6week intervals. In all sessions, digital models were obtained by an intraoral scanning device after removal of the archwire and were analyzed by software. Little's irregularity index, intercanine width, intermolar width and arch length were evaluated at three time points and were statistically analyzed with a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). Changes in these measurements at the three intervals (T1-T0, T2-T1, T3-T2) and overall treatment effects were also compared using the Student ttest. RESULTS: Comparing the two treatments regimes, intergroup mean values at T0, T1, T2, and T3 were not significantly different regarding the irregularity index, intercanine width, intermolar width and arch length. CONCLUSION: In this pilot study, no differences between the two treatment approaches could be detected for the phase of initial mandibular alignment.
Subject(s)
Malocclusion, Angle Class I , Orthodontic Brackets , Orthodontic Wires , Humans , Malocclusion, Angle Class I/surgery , Orthodontic Appliance Design , Pilot Projects , Prospective StudiesABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the article type, origin, main affiliation, number of publications, authors, and affiliations of six orthodontic journals during two intervals of 5 years each (2006-2010 and 2011-2015). METHODS: In total, 4879 articles examined in this study were screened online at the individual journal's website. The types of articles and their authorship characteristics in the six orthodontic journals [three journals indexed by Science Citation Index (SCI) and the others indexed by Science Citation Index Expanded (SCIE)] were recorded. Parameters were tested using the Pearson chi-square for independence at a 0.05 level of significance. RESULTS: Among all the article types, research articles were the most published in the orthodontic journals indexed by SCI and SCIE in the first (2006-2010; 88.1% and 77.6%, respectively) and second periods (2011-2015; 84.4% and 74.6%, respectively). In the first and second intervals, the European Union was the most common origin among articles accepted by the journals listed in SCI (30.1% and 29.2% respectively), whereas Asia/Oceania was the common origin among articles accepted by the journals listed in SCIE (44.1% and 43.4%, respectively). CONCLUSION: The articles published in the orthodontics journals listed under SCI and SCIE for 2006-2010 and 2011-2015 were significantly different in terms of numbers and characteristics.
