Does anchorage loss differ with 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems?

OBJECTIVES: To compare maxillary first molar anchorage loss between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot fixed appliance systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients requiring bilateral maxillary premolar extractions (n = 74) within a randomized clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot MBT bracket systems (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were included. Three-dimensional pre- and posttreatment digital models were landmarked and measured (R700 scanner and OrthoAnalyzer software, 3Shape, Copenhagen, Denmark). Anteroposterior position of the first molars was measured using the third medial rugae point as a reference. Anchorage loss (AL) represented the subtraction of the posttreatment distance from the pretreatment distance for both anchorage loss right (ALR) and left (ALL) sides. The values were then compared using a two-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: There were 41 and 33 cases for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot systems, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between groups, except for the presence or absence of anchorage devices (P = .050). For the total sample: 0.018-inch ALR = 3.86 mm, ALL = 3.30 mm and 0.022-inch ALR = 3.73 mm, ALL = 3.47 mm (P = .970). There was also no significant difference between the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups when subjects with anchorage devices were excluded (P = .383). CONCLUSIONS: Bracket slot size does not influence maxillary molar anchorage loss during orthodontic treatment.

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 1-duration of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment duration between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot systems and determine factors influencing treatment duration. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants aged 12 years or over were allocated to the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. Outcome measures included duration of: 1. overall treatment, 2. levelling and alignment, 3. working and finishing, and 4. appointment numbers and other treatment-related factors. Parametric tests (independent samples t-test) and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Mann-Whitney U-test) assessed differences between groups. A multiple linear regression analysis identified factors influencing treatment duration (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The mean duration of treatment for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot groups was 29.3 and 31.2 months, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in terms of treatment duration, duration of the key stages of treatment, and number of appointments (P > 0.05). The regression analysis revealed 33.0 per cent of variance in treatment duration was explained by age at bonding, Class II division 2 malocclusion, number of failed appointments, number of emergency appointments, and transfer to another clinician. There were no adverse events. LIMITATIONS: It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in treatment duration between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. Increasing patient age, Class II division 2 malocclusion, number of failed and emergency appointments, and multi-operator treatment all increase orthodontic treatment duration. REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. PROTOCOL: The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389.

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 3-biological side-effects of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and patient perception of pain during orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants aged 12 years or above were allocated to treatment with the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. OIIRR was assessed radiographically using standardized periapical radiographs before and after 9 months from the start of treatment. Patient perception of pain was assessed using a validated patient questionnaire at 6 months from the start of treatment. Parametric tests (t-test) and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Kruskal-Wallis test) assessed differences between the groups (P < 0.05). The correlation between severity of OIIRR and abnormal root morphology, history of dental trauma, and pain during treatment was assessed. RESULTS: Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the severity of the OIIRR nor patient perception of pain between the two study groups (P = 0.115 and P = 0.08 respectively). The correlation between the severity of OIIRR and abnormal root morphology or history of dental trauma was not statistically significant (P = 0.086 and P = 0.313). Moreover, there was no significant correlation between the severity of OIIRR and pain during treatment (R = 0.045, P = 0.617). LIMITATIONS: It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation, and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of bracket slot size on the severity of OIIRR and patient perception of pain are not significant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338.

A randomized clinical trial of the effectiveness of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot orthodontic bracket systems: part 2-quality of treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the quality of orthodontic treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Eligible participants aged 12 years or over were allocated to the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch slot MBT appliance (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) using block randomization in groups of 10. Outcome measures included: 1. ABO cast-radiograph evaluation (CR-EVAL), 2. peer assessment rating (PAR) scores, 3. incisor inclination, and 4. patient perception using the Index of Orthodontic Treatment Need aesthetic component (IOTN AC) and three validated questionnaires before, during and after treatment. Parametric tests [independent samples t-test and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)] and non-parametric tests (chi-square with Fisher's exact tests and Mann-Whitney U-test) assessed differences between groups (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Of the 187 participants randomized (1:1 ratio), 34 withdrew or were excluded (protocol deviations or poor cooperation). There were 77 patients in the 0.018-inch slot group and 76 patients in the 0.022-inch slot group (overall mean age: 19.1 years). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups (P > 0.05). The mean total ABO CR-EVAL scores were 34.7 and 34.5; mean percentage PAR score reduction 74.1 per cent and 77.1 per cent; mean change for maxillary incisor inclination 2.9 degrees and 1.6 degrees and for mandibular incisor inclination 2.7 degrees and 1.4 degrees for the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch groups, respectively. Improvement in patient perception of aesthetics after treatment was statistically significant for both groups (P < 0.05). However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups for ABO CR-EVAL, percentage PAR score reduction, incisor inclination, and patient perception of treatment (P > 0.05). No adverse events were observed during treatment. LIMITATIONS: It was impossible to blind clinicians or patients to allocation and oral hygiene and periodontal outcomes were not assessed. CONCLUSIONS: There were no statistically or clinically significant differences in the quality of occlusal outcomes, incisor inclination and patient perception of treatment between 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot bracket systems. REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338. PROTOCOL: The protocol was published at DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-389.

Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician's choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient's perception of wearing orthodontic appliances. DISCUSSION: The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338.

Film and digital periapical radiographs for the measurement of apical root shortening.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy and agreement of scanned film and digital periapical radiographs for the measurement of apical root shortening. STUDY DESIGN: Twenty-four film and digital [phosphor plate sensor (PPS)] periapical radiographs were taken using the long-cone paralleling technique for six extracted teeth before and after 1mm of apical root trimming. All teeth were mounted using a typodont and the radiographs were recorded using a film holder and polysiloxane occlusal index for each tooth to ensure standardization during the different radiographic exposures. The film radiographs were scanned and the tooth length measurements for the scanned film and digital (PPS) images were calculated using Image-J-Link 1.4 software (http://rebweb.nih.gov/ij/index.html) for the two groups. The accuracy and agreement among the tooth length measurements from each group and the true tooth length measurements were calculated using intra-class correlation (ICC) tests and Bland and Altman plots. RESULTS: A high level of agreement was found between the true tooth length measurements and the scanned film measurements (ICC=0.979, limit of agreement 0.579 to -0.565) and the digital (PPS) radiograph measurements (ICC= 0.979, limit of agreement 0.596 to -0.763). Moreover, a high level of agreement was found between the scanned film and digital (PPS) radiographs for the measurement of tooth length ICC=0.991, limit of agreement 0.411-0.231. CONCLUSION: Film and digital (PPS) periapical radiographs are accurate methods for measuring apical root shortening with a high level of agreement. Key words:Root shortening, measurement, periapical radiographs, film, digital.