TODENTJ-25-03-2019_TODENTJ-12-1137 1553507689 Bentham Open doi@benthamopen.net Bentham Open The Open Dentistry Journal TODENTJ 1874-2106 12 21 2018 12 1 Naiara Carolina Jacob Lima Izabel Cristina de Mendonça Campos Freitas Falcão Karina Maria Salvatore de Freitas Darwin Vaz de Lima Fabrício Pinelli Valarelli Rodrigo Hermont Cançado Renata Cristina Gobbi de Oliveira Ricardo Cesar Gobbi de Oliveira Proposition: The objective of this study was to compare changes in maxillary and mandibular dental arch dimensions in cases treated nonextraction with conventional appliances and self-ligating Damon System. Materials and Methods: initial (T1) and final (T2) dental casts of 45 patients with Class I malocclusion treated nonextraction, with slight to moderate crowding, divided into two groups. Group 1: 21 patients treated with self-ligating Damon appliances, at a mean initial age of 18.37 years and mean treatment time of 2.11 years. Group 2: 24 patients treated with conventional appliances, at a mean initial age of 19.50 years and mean treatment time of 1.99 years. The model analysis was performed; Little irregularity index was used to evaluate crowding and arch form was evaluated by measurements in maxillary and mandibular arches including intercanine, interpremolar (first and second premolars) and intermolar distances and arch length. The intragroup comparison was performed with dependent t or Wilcoxon tests and intergroup comparison, with independent t or Mann Whitney tests. Results: In intergroup comparison of treatment changes (T2-T1) the Damon group presented an increase in maxillary transversal dimensions significantly greater than the conventional group. The change in maxillary arch length did not show difference between the groups. Regarding the mandibular arch, the Damon group presented a significantly greater increase in intercanine and inter first premolars than the conventional group. In The mandibular arch length, the greater and significant increase was observed in the groups of patients treated with conventional appliances. Conclusions: The treatment with the Damon appliances resulted in a significantly greater increase of maxillary arch dimensions when compared to conventional appliances. Mandibular intercanine and interpremolar distances also presented greater increase in Damon than conventional appliances. The increase in mandibular arch length was greater in conventional than in Damon group. 12 21 2018 1137 1146 TODENTJ-12-1137 1 10.2174/crossmark_policy opendentistryjournal.com benthamopen.com true Peer Reviewed Single blind Checked with iThenticate 2018-08-22 2018-11-13 2018-12-19 2018-12-21 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 10.2174/1874210601812011137 1553507689 https://opendentistryjournal.com/VOLUME/12/PAGE/1137/ https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-1137/TODENTJ-12-1137.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-1137/TODENTJ-12-1137.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-1137/TODENTJ-12-1137.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-1137/TODENTJ-12-1137.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-1137/TODENTJ-12-1137.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-1137/TODENTJ-12-1137.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-1137/TODENTJ-12-1137.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-1137/TODENTJ-12-1137.xml Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. Cacciafesta V. 124 403 2003 10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00501-8 Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of friction of conventional and metal-insert ceramic brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124 (4) : 403-9. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Chen SS 137 e1 2010 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.11.009 Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (726) : e1-e18. discussion -7 Orthod. Craniofac. Res. Cattaneo P.M. 14 222 2011 10.1111/j.1601-6343.2011.01527.x Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, et al. Transversal maxillary dento-alveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self-ligating brackets: A randomized clinical trial using CBCT-scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14 (4) : 222-33. Clin. Orthod. Res. Damon D.H. 1 52 1998 10.1111/ocr.1998.1.1.52 Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res 1998; 1 (1) : 52-61. Damon D. 2004 Damon D. Damon system: The workbook 2004. World J. Orthod. Tecco S. 10 290 2009 Tecco S, Tetè S, Perillo L, Chimenti C, Festa F. Maxillary arch width changes during orthodontic treatment with fixed self-ligating and traditional straight-wire appliances. World J Orthod 2009; 10 (4) : 290-4. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. Pandis N. 140 e99 2011 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.03.019 Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: A single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140 (3) : e99-e105. Angle Orthod. Vajaria R. 81 647 2011 10.2319/071910-420.1 Vajaria R, BeGole E, Kusnoto B, Galang MT, Obrez A. Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system. Angle Orthod 2011; 81 (4) : 647-52. Andrews LA 1995 Andrews LA. Syllabus of Andrews philosophy and techniques 1995. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. Fleming P.S. 135 597 2009 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.014 Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135 (5) : 597-602. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Canuto LF 137 e1 2010 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.017 Canuto LF, de Freitas MR, Janson G, de Freitas KM, Martins PP. Influence of rapid palatal expansion on maxillary incisor alignment stability. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (164) : e1-6. discussion -5 Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Ong E 138 e1 2010 Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP, Ho C. Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138 (138) : e1-7. discussion -9 Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. Taner T.U. 126 464 2004 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.033 Taner TU, Ciger S, El H, Germeç D, Es A. Evaluation of dental arch width and form changes after orthodontic treatment and retention with a new computerized method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126 (4) : 464-75. Martins PP. Avaliação da influência da expansão rápida da maxila sobre a recidiva do apinhamento ântero-superior em casos tratados ortodonticamente com extrações de pré-molares. 2007. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. Scott P 134 e1 2008 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.018 Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon 3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134 (470) : e1-8. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. Pandis N. 132 208 2007 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.030 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; 132 (2) : 208-15. Dental Press J. Orthod. Franco E.M. 20 68 2015 10.1590/2177-6709.20.6.068-074.oar Franco EM, Valarelli FP, Fernandes JB, Cançado RH, de Freitas KM. Comparative study of torque expression among active and passive self-ligating and conventional brackets. Dental Press J Orthod 2015; 20 (6) : 68-74.