Evaluation of Maxillary Transverse Arch Dimensions Following Leveling and Alignment with Different Archwire-Bracket Combinations During Fixed Appliance Treatment - A Retrospective Study Original Research
Main Article Content
Abstract
Background- Arch expansion is one of the non- extraction methods of gaining space. This study aims to assess and compare the arch expansion achieved during initial leveling and alignment with three different bracket-archwire combinations.
Material and Methods- This was a retrospective study done in a university setup. From the available patient information archives, records of 30 subjects based on their advocated bracket system were identified and categorized into three groups. Their pre-treatment (T0) and post aligning (T2) 3D model maxillary scans were superimposed according to the reference points marked on the third palatal rugae using an OrthoAnalyzer software(3 shape version 19.0) to assess the changes in Intercanine width (ICW), Inter-premolar width (IPW) and Intermolar width (IMW) and arch length. For the recorded data, descriptive statistics, One-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD post hoc were analyzed using SPSS software.
Results- Except for the Damon group that showed considerable increase in the intermolar and premolar dimensions, other groups had no statistically significant differences in terms of Intercanine width, Interpremolar width, and Intermolar width and Arch length.
Conclusion- Changes in the transverse dimension were noticed among all the three groups with maximum in the Damon bracket and Damon archwire combination. Although the difference in expansion between groups showed no statistically significant difference, it was appreciated clinically in relieving dental crowding.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
References
Pattisapu JV, Gegg CA, Olavarria G, Johnson KK, Ruiz RL, Costello BJ. Craniosynostosis: diagnosis and surgical management. Atlas Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2010 Sep;18(2):77–91.
Meyer AH, Woods MG, Manton DJ. Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with orthodontic treatment. Part 1: differences between premolar extraction and non-extraction treatment outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014 Feb;145(2):207–16.
Gurgel J de A, Pinzan-Vercelino CRM, Leon-Salazar V. Maxillary and mandibular dentoalveolar expansion with an auxiliary beta-titanium arch. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017 Oct;152(4):543–52.
Mathur P, Tandon R, Chandra P, Dhingra R, Singh P. Self-ligating brackets: from past to present. IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research. 2021 Oct 28;7(3):216–22.
Damon DH. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod. 1998 Nov [cited 2022 Oct 18];32(11).
Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006 May;76(3):480–5.
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. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):208–15.
Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Mar;131(3):395–9.
Nam HJ, Flores-Mir C, Major PW, Heo G, Kim J, Lagravère MO. Dental and skeletal changes associated with the Damon system philosophical approach. Int Orthod. 2019 Dec;17(4):621–33.
Shook C, Kim S (Michelle), Burnheimer J. Maxillary arch width and buccal corridor changes with Damon and conventional brackets: A retrospective analysis. Angle Orthod. 2015 Sep 23;86(4):655–60.
Gatto E, Matarese G, Di Bella G, Nucera R, Borsellino C, Cordasco G. Load-deflection characteristics of superelastic and thermal nickel-titanium wires. Eur J Orthod. 2013 Feb;35(1):115–23.
Eslami N, Sharifi F, Nasseri A, Jahanbin A. Comparison of changes in incisors inclination and dental arch dimensions in Damon and MBT systems using Dolphin software. Iran J Orthod [Internet]. 2021 May 11;15(1).
Pazera C, Gkantidis N. Palatal rugae positional changes during orthodontic treatment of growing patients. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Aug;24(3):351–9.
Gianelly AA. Arch width after extraction and non-extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jan;123(1):25–8.
Weinberg M, Sadowsky C. Resolution of mandibular arch crowding in growing patients with Class I malocclusions treated non extraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996 Oct;110(4):359–64.
Robert Williams MA, Maureen Stone ER. CBCT assessment of dental and skeletal changes using the Damon versus conventional (MBT) system. Dentistry (Sunnyvale). 2015;5(10).
Angolkar PV, Kapila S, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS. Evaluation of friction between ceramic brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Dec;98(6):499–506.
Frictional resistance of ceramic and stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Nov 1;98(5):398–403.
Mah JK, Huang JC, Choo H. Practical applications of cone-beam computed tomography in orthodontics. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Oct;141 Suppl 3:7S – 13S.