Affiliation:
1. Orthodontic Department, School of Dentistry, University of Dundee, UK
2. Orthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq
Abstract
Summary
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.
Funder
UK National Health Service (NHS)
University of Dundee
3M-Unitek
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference51 articles.
1. Re: a plea for agreement;Rubin;The Angle Orthodontist,2001
2. Orthodontic slot size: it’s time to retool;Peck;The Angle Orthodontist,2001
3. Benefits and rationale of differential bracket slot sizes: the use of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot sizes within a single bracket system;Epstein;The Angle Orthodontist,2002
4. “Two” much of a good thing? Then let’s pick one slot size and make it metric;Kusy;American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,2002
5. 2002 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 1. Results and trends;Keim;Journal of Clinical Orthodontics,2002
Cited by
18 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献