medigraphic.com
ISSN 2395-9215 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNAM

2017, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortodon 2017; 5 (1)

Patient with severe crowding: orthodontic management with Empower self-ligating brackets

Terán CV, Gurrola MB, Casasa AA

Language: Spanish
References: 15
Page: 21-26
PDF size: 468.42 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The case of a patient of 16 years 9 months of age whose chief complaint was «crooked teeth» with skeletal class II, hyperdivergent growth, bilateral molar class I, bilateral canine class II, severe maxillary and mandibular crowding and deviated midlines is hereby reported. The patient did not refer any habit. The treatment consisted in alignment, leveling, detailed and retention with the following appliances: 0.022” x 0.028” Roth prescription brackets. The active treatment time was 1 years 7 months. Thermoformed acetate retainers were placed in the upper and lower arches as well as fixed retainers from teeth #13-23 and 33-43. The treatment was successful obtaining bilateral canine and molar class I, normal overjet and overbite, matching dental midlines, good intercuspation and a harmonic facial profile.


REFERENCES

  1. Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 123 (4): 416-242.

  2. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effects of ligation type and method on the resistance to sliding of novel orthodontic brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod. 2003; 73 (4): 418-430.

  3. Plaza SP, Nieto M, Barrera JP, Triviño AL, Valencia A. Comparación de la resistencia al deslizamiento en brackets de autoligado y un bracket convencional. Rev Venez Ortod. 2010; 27 (1): 29-34.

  4. Tecco S, Di Iorio D, Cordasco G, Verrocchi I, Festa F. An in vitro investigation of the influence of self-ligating brackets, low-friction ligatures, and archwire on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29 (4): 390-397.

  5. Fortini A, Lupoli M, Cacciafesta V. A new low-friction ligation system. J Clin Orthod. 2005; 39 (8): 464-470.

  6. Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of selfligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20 (5): 589-596.

  7. Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. Int J Orthod Dent Children. 1935; 21 (9): 837-840.

  8. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod. 2003; 30 (3): 262-273.

  9. Miles PG. Self-ligating vs. conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 132 (2): 223-225.

  10. Chimenti C, Franchi L, Di Giuseppe MG, Lucci M. Friction of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures with different dimensions. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75 (3): 421-425.

  11. Bortoly TG, Guerrero AP, Rached RN, Tanaka O, Guariza-Filho O, Rosa EA. Sliding resistance with esthetic ligatures: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133 (3): 340.e1-7.

  12. Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994; 106 (5): 472-480.

  13. Hanson GH. The SPEED system: a report on the development of a new edgewise appliance. Am J Orthod. 1980; 78 (3): 243-265.

  14. Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997; 111 (2): 119-140.

  15. Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod. 1997; 24 (4): 309-317.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com