CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03363620Updated Dec 6, 2017

Comparison of Arch Expansion Changes Between Passive Self-ligating and Conventional Brackets

A Phase 3 interventional study of Orthodontic Brackets and Orthodontic Brackets in Orthodontic Appliance Complication, sponsored by CES University. Completed. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2017-12-06.

Sponsored by CES University · Phase 3, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Phase 3
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
54
Allocation
Randomized
Sex
All
01

Study summary

The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to compare the transverse development of the arches and the incisor inclination comparing two different ligating systems (SL vs CL) with the same arch form protocol (Damon arch form) and the same disarticulation protocols after the alignment and leveling period of non-extraction patients.

Read the detailed description

Materials and Methods: Fifty-four subjects were randomly with an electronic randomization program allocated to treatment with either a self-ligating bracket system (Damon Q-slot 0.022", Ormco Corp,) or a conventional bracket system (Orthos-slot 0.022", Ormco Corp). All patients were treated following the same protocol and arch wire sequence: 0.014-inch, 0.018-inch and 0.014x0.025-inch Damon copper nickel-titanium arch wires (Cu-NiTi; Ormco). Lateral cephalograms and study models, taken at prior to treatment (T0) and after alignment and levelling (T1), were used to compare the amount of arch expansion and incisor angulation changes that took place. In the analysis of results in a single observer analyzes the data blindly without knowing which group the patients belonged. Results: Models and cephalograms of the patients and both stages(T0-T1) were measured at the data were analyzed in STATA S.E. Treatment produce statistically significant increases in transverse arch dimensions especially in premolars maxillary (2.8-4.3mm) and mandibullary (2.0-4.2mm) of both group. The expansion in the maxillary arch was similar for both groups, but in the mandibular arch was greater in the self ligation group in about 2 mm more. Conclusions: The treatment with self ligation brackets produced more expansion in the mandibular arch than the conventional ligation brackets when used the same arch Damon protocols.

02

Conditions studied

  • Orthodontic Appliance Complication

Keywords

  • maxillary expansion
  • self ligating
  • arch form
03

Who can participate

Ages eligible
Child (0–17), Adult (18–64), Older adult (65+)
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  1. ANB angle between 0º- 5º
  2. Systemically and periodontally healthy subjects not taking any medications.
  3. Maxillary and/or mandibular irregularity index (canine-to-canine) between mild to moderate
  4. A non-extraction treatment approach.
  5. Permanent dentition with second molars erupted or in a functional eruptive phase.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  1. Systemically and periodontally compromise subjects and taking any medications. (2 ) subjects who did not want participate in the investigation
04

Study design

Phase
Phase 3
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
54 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    self ligation brackets damon ormco®

    the self ligation bracket (damon system) in the orthodontic treatment, was used in the experimental group with the recommended protocol damon arches sequence.

    Device: Orthodontic Brackets

  • Active comparator
    conventional brackets orthos ormco®

    the conventional bracket (orthos system) in the orthodontic treatment, was used in the active comparator group with the recommended protocol damon arches sequence as used in the experimental group.

    Device: Orthodontic Brackets

Interventions

  • DeviceOrthodontic Brackets

    arch form development in the orthodontic treatment with 2 different kind of ligation brackets with the same arches protocol in the leveling and alignment phase

    Also known as: self ligation brackets

  • DeviceOrthodontic Brackets

    arch form development in the orthodontic treatment with 2 different kind of ligation brackets with the same arches protocol in the leveling and alignment phase

    Also known as: conventional brackets

05

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. transverse development of the arches

    The maxillary and mandibular widths were measured between the cusp tips of the canines, the buccal cusp tips of the first and second premolars and the mesio-buccal cusp tips of the first molars . They were measured using a digital caliper (Starrett 799A-6/150 Digital Caliper, Athol, Massachusetts, USA) positioned parallel to the occlusal plane.

    Time frame: 2 years

Secondary outcomes

  1. incisor inclination

    incisor inclination , the maxillary incisors were measured in the lateral cephalogram, relative to the cranial base (U1-SN) and the palatal plane (U1-PP); the mandibular incisor were related to the mandibular plane (L1/Go-Gn) and NB (L1-NB).

    Time frame: 2 years

06

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

07

References and documents

Publications

  • Atik E, Akarsu-Guven B, Kocadereli I, Ciger S. Evaluation of maxillary arch dimensional and inclination changes with self-ligating and conventional brackets using broad archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016 Jun;149(6):830-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.11.024. PubMed 27241993 ↗
  • Fleming PS, Lee RT, Marinho V, Johal A. Comparison of maxillary arch dimensional changes with passive and active self-ligation and conventional brackets in the permanent dentition: a multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Aug;144(2):185-93. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.03.012. PubMed 23910199 ↗
08

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03363620
Lead sponsor
CES University
Responsible party
ANGELA MARIA SIERRA ANGEL (ORTHODONTIST, CES University) — Principal investigator
First posted
Dec 6, 2017
Start date
Jan 20, 2015
Primary completion
Dec 20, 2015
Completion
Dec 20, 2016
Last update
Dec 6, 2017

Oversight

FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2017. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion