Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 804
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 18  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 81

Effects of a ceramic active self-ligating bracket on retraction/tipping/rotation of canine, premolar mesialization, and transverse arch dimensions: A preliminary single-blind split-mouth randomized clinical trial

1 Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran
2 Orthodontist in Private Practice, Isfahan, Iran
3 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Orthodontist in Private Practice, Tehran, Iran
5 Department of Dental Anatomy, Dental Faculty, Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Nasim Ghorani
#5, Soroush 2 Alley, Sadi Park, Isfahan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.328749

Rights and Permissions

Background: There is no clinical study on ceramic self-ligating brackets (SLBs). Therefore, this preliminary study was conducted for the first time to address its effects. Materials and Methods: This split-mouth randomized trial was performed on 32 quadrants in 16 orthodontic patients needing extraction of maxillary premolars and distalization of canines. In each blinded patient, right/left sides were randomized into control (ceramic bracket) and experimental (ceramic SLB) groups. Dental stone models were taken before canine retraction and 3 months into retraction. Models were digitized as three-dimensional models. Changes were measured on superimposed models. Groups were compared using Wilcoxon signed-rank test (α = 0.05, β = 0.1). Results: Both bracket types caused significant changes after 3 months in terms of all assessed clinical outcomes (P ≤ 0.002). Compared to conventional ceramic brackets (control), ceramic SLBs reduced retraction rate (P = 0.001), canine rotation (P = 0.001), canine tipping (P = 0.002), and arch expansion at the canine site (P = 0.003). However, the extents of anchorage loss (P = 0.796) and arch constriction in the premolar area (P = 0.605) were not statistically different between the bracket types. Conclusion: Compared to conventional metal-lined ceramic brackets, active ceramic SLB can increase the duration of canine distalization, while reducing canine rotation and tipping (inducing more bodily movements). The loss of anchorage with ceramic SLB was similar to that of conventional ceramic bracket after 3 months of treatment (considering the lower rate of SLB canine retraction during that time). Both brackets similarly constricted the arch at the premolar site. In the canine area, they expanded the arch, with the SLB causing smaller extents of expansion.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded270    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal