medigraphic.com
ISSN 2007-462X (Print)
Organo de divulgación Científica de la Unidad Académica de Odontología de la Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit (UAN)

2019, Number 23

<< Back Next >>

Rev Tame 2019; 7.8 (23)

Tratamiento de ortodoncia con aparatología de autoligado pasivo: DAMON

Macías-Villanueva TG, Silva-Zatarain AN

Language: Spanish
References: 19
Page: 939-942
PDF size: 388.17 Kb.


ABSTRACT

The combination of self-ligating brackets with Copper NiTi arches produces an environment of low force and friction where the bone follows the movement of the teeth; which allows a greater dental expansion, causing a lower inclination of the incisors and a lower need for tooth extraction. Diagnosis: Female patient presents class I bilateral molar with moderate anterior crowding and right upper ectopic canine, horizontal overbite of 1.5 mm and vertical of -1 mm. Treatment objectives: Alignment and dental leveling, achieving an adequate functional occlusion keeping class I molar and canine. Treatment: Fixed self-ligating device Damon slot 0.022 '' was placed, treating the problem from the initial phase with open coil springs and the use of light force elastics to generate enough space for a proper alignment and development of the arches, which would correct the transverse collapse. Results: Transversal and sagittal changes were obtained mainly of dental and functional type with favorable effects on the facial aspect, achieving an adequate dental occlusion.


REFERENCES

  1. Pliska B, Fuchs R, Beyer J, Larson B. Effect of applied moment on resistance to sliding among esthetic self-ligating brackets. The Angle Orthodontist. 2014; 84 (1):134-139.

  2. Muguruma T, Iijima M, Brantley W, Ahluwalia K, Kohda N, Mizoguchi I. Effects of third-order torque on frictional force of self-ligating brackets. The Angle Orthodontist. 2014; 84 (6):1054-1061.

  3. Monteiro M, Silva L, Elias C, Vilella O. Frictional resistance of self-ligating versus conventional brackets in different bracket-archwire-angle combinations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014; 22(3):228–234.

  4. Arteche P. Oberti G, Aristizabal J, Sierra A, Rey D. Consideraciones importantes de la ortodoncia con brackets de autoligado versus ligado convencional. Rev Esp Ortod. 2015; 45: 93-100.

  5. Jakob S, Matheus D, Jimenez-Pellegrin M, Pedroso C, Botelho F. Comparative study of friction between metallic and conventional interactive self-ligating brackets in different alignment conditions. Dental Press J. Orthod. 2014; 19(3): 82-89.

  6. Albuquerque A, Salvatore K, Vaz D, Pinelli F, Hermont R. Comparison of changes in incisors position in cases treated with Damon self-ligating and conventional fixed appliances. The Open Dentistry Journal. 2018; 12: 275-282.

  7. Aycardi M, Ibarra M, Lanata A. Análisis de Wala Ridge para evaluar cambios transversales del arco inferior en pacientes tratados con sistemas de autoligado. Univ Odontol. 2014; 33(70): 129-136.

  8. Atik E, Ciğer S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class I maxillary constriction patients. The Angle Orthodontist. 2014; 84 (4): 615-622.

  9. Morais J, Melsen B, De Freitas K, Castello N, Garib D, Cattaneo P. Evaluation of maxillary buccal alveolar boné before and after orthodontic alignment without extractions: Acone beam computed tomographic study. Angle Orthodontist. 2018; 88 (6):748-756.

  10. Yu Z, Jiaqiang L, Weiting C, Wang Y, Zhen M, Ni Z. Stability of treatment with self-ligating brackets and conventional brackets in adolescents: a long-term follow-up retrospective study. Head Face Med. 2014; 10:41.

  11. Eberting J, Straja S, Tuncay O. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):228-234.

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

  13. Turnbull N, Birnie D. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(3):395-399.

  14. Chen S, Greenlee G, Kim J, Smith C, Huang G. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(6):726-727.

  15. Celar A, Schedlberger M, Dörfler P, Bertl M. Systematic review on self-ligating vs. conventional brackets: initial pain, number of visits, treatment time. J Orofac Orthop. 2013;74(1):40-51.

  16. Fleming P, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(3):575-584.

  17. Berger J. The influence of the SPEED bracket's self-ligating design on force levels in tooth movement: a comparative in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 97(3):219-228.

  18. Damon D. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res. 1998; 1(1): 52-61.

  19. Kim T, Kim K, Baek S. Comparison of frictional forces during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of self-ligating brackets and archwires with a custom-designed typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(2):15-24.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com