TODENTJ-25-03-2019_TODENTJ-12-275 1553507343 Bentham Open doi@benthamopen.net Bentham Open The Open Dentistry Journal TODENTJ 1874-2106 03 30 2018 12 1 Adriana Candida Albuquerque Nogueira Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas Darwin Vaz de Lima Fabrício Pinelli Valarelli Rodrigo Hermont Cançado Objective: This study aimed to compare the changes in maxillary and mandibular incisors position in cases treated with Damon self-ligating and conventional fixed appliances. Methods: The sample comprised 51 patients with Class I malocclusion, mild to moderate crowding, treated without extractions, divided into 2 groups: Group 1 consisted of 20 patients treated with Damon self-ligating appliance, with a mean initial age of 15.00 years, treated for a mean period of 2.01 years; and Group 2 comprised 31 patients treated with conventional fixed appliances, with a mean initial age of 14.98 years, treated for a mean period of 1.81 years. The initial and final cephalograms of each patient were measured. The intergroup comparisons were performed with independent t or Mann-Whitney tests. Results: Both groups showed a mild protrusion and a buccal inclination of the maxillary and mandibular incisors, with no statistically significant difference between them. Conclusion: The changes in maxillary and mandibular incisors position were similar between the groups treated with Damon self-ligating and conventional fixed appliances. 03 30 2018 275 282 TODENTJ-12-275 1 10.2174/crossmark_policy opendentistryjournal.com benthamopen.com true Peer Reviewed Single blind Checked with iThenticate 2017-12-26 2018-02-10 2018-02-28 2018-03-30 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode 10.2174/1874210601812010275 1553507343 https://opendentistryjournal.com/VOLUME/12/PAGE/275/ https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-275/TODENTJ-12-275.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-275/TODENTJ-12-275.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-275/TODENTJ-12-275.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-275/TODENTJ-12-275.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-275/TODENTJ-12-275.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-275/TODENTJ-12-275.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-275/TODENTJ-12-275.pdf https://opendentistryjournal.com/contents/volumes/V12/TODENTJ-12-275/TODENTJ-12-275.xml Maltagliati LA. Auto-ligáveis-no que diferem? Qual a vantagem em utilizar braquetes auto-ligáveis na prática clínica? 2007; 6. J. Clin. Orthod. Damon D.H. 32 670 1998 Damon DH. The Damon low-friction bracket: A biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32 (11) : 670-80. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. Cacciafesta V. 124 395 2003 10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00504-3 Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Ricciardi A, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124 (4) : 395-402. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi Jiang R.P. 43 459 2008 Jiang RP, Fu MK. Non-extraction treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008; 43 (8) : 459-63. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Active or passive self-ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparative efficiency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (1): 12 e1-6; discussion 12-3. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134 (4): 470 e1-8. Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 (6): 726 e1- e18; discussion -7. Br Med J Dahlberg G. 2 358 1940 Dahlberg G. Statistical methods for medical and biological students. Br Med J 1940; 2 (4158) : 358-9. Am. J. Orthod. Houston W.J. 83 382 1983 10.1016/0002-9416(83)90322-6 Houston WJ. The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 1983; 83 (5) : 382-90. 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. J. Orthod. O’Higgins E.A. 27 11 2000 10.1093/ortho/27.1.11 O’Higgins EA, Lee RT. How much space is created from expansion or premolar extraction? J Orthod 2000; 27 (1) : 11-3. Angle Orthod. Fleming P.S. 79 46 2009 10.2319/121007-579.1 Fleming PS, Dibiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Pain experience during initial alignment with a self-ligating and a conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system. A randomized controlled clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2009; 79 (1) : 46-50. 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. Angle Orthod. Fleming P.S. 80 575 2010 10.2319/081009-454.1 Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010; 80 (3) : 575-84. 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.