Palabras clave
Brackets de ortodoncia
Brackets de autoligado
Brackets convencionales
Brackets de autoligado
Brackets convencionales
Cómo citar
Comparación de Brackets de Autoligado y Brackets Convencionales basada en la evidencia. (2021). Odontoestomatología, 23(38). https://doi.org/10.22592/ode2021n37e302
Resumen
Los brackets de autoligado son aquellos que incorporan un mecanismo de cierre que mantiene el arco en el interior de la ranura del bracket. Fueron creados principalmente para crear un sistema de menor fricción, permitiendo una mecánica de deslizamiento más eficiente y disminuir el tiempo de tratamiento.
Objetivo: El objetivo de esta revisión es presentar de manera más estructurada y ordenada toda la información disponible respecto de los distintos aparatos de autoligado, ya sea activo o pasivo, comparando las cualidades entre sí y con los aparatos convencionales.
Método: Se realizó una búsqueda mediante PubMed y Epistemonikos, sin importar idioma o año de publicación.
Resultados: Se establecieron comparaciones tanto de brackets de autoligado activos con pasivos, como de brackets de autoligado con brackets convencionales en distintas situaciones clínicas.
Conclusiones: Para la gran mayoría de situaciones clínicas, no existe una diferencia estadísticamente significativa, a excepción de la expresión de torque, en donde los brackets convencionales tienen una mayor ventaja.
Referencias
1.do Nascimento LEAG, de Souza MMG, Azevedo ARP, Maia LC. Are self-ligating brackets related to less formation of Streptococcus mutans colonies? A systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19(1):60–8.
1. 2.Pandis N, Bourauel C, Eliades T. Changes in the stiffness of the ligating mechanism in retrieved active self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(6):834–7.
2. 3.Gandini P, Orsi L, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A. Opening and closure forces of sliding mechanisms of different self-ligating brackets. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21(3):231–4.
3. 4.Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2001;4(4):228–34.
4. 5.Brauchlia LM, Steineckb M, Wichelhausc A. Active and passive self-ligation: A myth? Part 1: Torque control. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(4):663–9.
5. 6.Yang X, He Y, Chen T, Zhao M, Yan Y, Wang H, et al. Differences between active and passive self-ligating brackets for orthodontic treatment. Systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78(2):121–8.
6. 7.Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. International Journal of Orthodontia and Dentistry for Children 1935;21:837‐40.
7. 8.Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):216-22.
8. 9.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.
10.Meeran NA. Self-ligating brackets: an update. J Clin Orthod. 2012;46(4):235-41
9. 11.Harradine N. The History and Development of Self-Ligating Brackets. Semin Orthod. 2008;14(1):5–18.
10. 12.Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 May;121(5):472-82
11. 13.Chung M, Nikolai RJ, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Third-order torque and self-ligating orthodontic bracket-type effects on sliding friction. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):551–7.
12. 14.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.e1-12.e6.
13. 15.Badawi HM, Toogood RW, Carey JPR, Heo G, Major PW. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(5):721–8.
14. 16.Al-Thomali Y, Mohamed RN, Basha S. Torque expression in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets: A systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(1):e123–8.
15. 17.Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Traini T, Di Iorio D, D’Attilio M. Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(6):1041–5.
16. 18.Fuck L-M, Wilmes B, Gürler G, Hönscheid R, Drescher D. Friktionsverhalten selbstligierender und konventioneller Bracketsysteme. Informationen aus Orthod & Kieferorthopädie. 2007;39(1):6–17.
17. 19.Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(2):202–11.
20.Burrow SJ. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: A critical review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(4):442–7.
18. 21.Araujo RC, Bichara LM, De Araujo AM, Normando D. Debris and friction of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets after clinical use. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(4):673–7.
19. 22.Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El-Bialy TH, Flores-Mir C. Frictional resistance in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):592–601.
20. 23.Kim TK, Kim KD, Baek SH. 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):187.e15-187.e24.
24.Ludwig B, Bister D, Baumgaertel S. Self-Ligating Brackets in Orthodontics. Vol.80, The Angle Orthodontist. 2010. 575–584 p.
21. 25.Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J.2005;21(2):123–7.
22. 26.Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135: 597-602.
23. 27.Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP, Ho C. Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(2):138.e1-138.e7.
24. 28.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 Oct; 134 (4): 471-478.
25. 29.Megat R, Idris H, Yacob H, Zainal SH. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(2):176–181.
26. 30.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):208–215.
27. 31.Pesce RE, Uribe F, Janakiraman N, Neace WP, Peterson DR, Nanda R. Evaluation of rotational control and forces generated during first-order archwire deflections: A comparison of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36(3):245–254.
28. 32.Dehbi H, Azaroual MF, Zaoui F, Halimi A, Benyahia H. Therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets: A systematic review. Int Orthod. 2017;15(3):297–311.
29. 33.Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(3):575–584.
30. 34.Machibya FM, Bao X, Zhao L, Hu M. Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(2):280–285.
31. 35.da Costa Monini A, Júnior LGG, Vianna AP, Martins RP. A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(4):1047–1053.
32. 36.da Costa Monini A, Gandini LG, Martins RP, Vianna AP. Canine retraction and anchorage loss: Self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(5):846–852.
33. 37.Monini A da C, Gandini LG, Vianna AP, Martins RP, Jacob HB. Tooth movement rate and anchorage lost during canine retraction: A maxillary and mandibular comparison. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(4):559–565.
34. 38.Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM, Weissheimer A, Allgayer S. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets: A randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(2):292–297.
35. 39.de Almeida MR, Herrero F, Fattal A, Davoody AR, Nanda R, Uribe F. A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments. Angle Orthod.2013;83(6):937–942.
36. 40.Zhou Q, ul Haq AAA, Tian L, Chen X, Huang K, Zhou Y. Canine retraction and anchorage loss self-ligating versus conventional brackets: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 136(15):1-9.
37. 41.Malik DES, Fida M, Afzal E, Irfan S. Comparison of anchorage loss between conventional and self-ligating brackets during canine retraction – A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthod. 2020;18(1):41–53.
38. 42.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.
39. 43.Songra G, Clover M, Atack NE, Ewings P, Sherriff M, Sandy JR, et al. Comparative assessment of alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: A single-center randomized controlled trial. 2014;145(5):569–578.
40. 44.Wong H, Collins J, Tinsley D, Sandler J, Benson P . Does the bracket-ligature combination affect the amount of orthodontic space closure over three months? A randomized controlled trial. J Orthod 2013; 40: 155–162
41. 45.Burrow SJ. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):626–633.
42. 46.Yang X, Xue C, El Y, Zhao M, Luo M, Wang P, et al. Transversal changes , space closure , and efficiency of conventional and self-ligating appliances: A quantitative systematic review. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;79(1):1-10
43. 47.Dalstra M, Eriksen H, Bergamini C, Melsen B. Actual versus theoretical torsional play in conventional and self-ligating bracket systems. J Orthod. 2015;42(2):103–113.
44. 48.Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating brackets : a prospective clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2006; 9(4): 193-198.
45. 49.Atik E, Akarsu-Guven B, Kocadereli I, Ciger S. Evaluation of maxillary arch dimensional and inclination changes with self-ligating and conventional brackets using broad archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2016;149(6):830–837.
46. 50.de Almeida MR, Futagami C, Castro AC, Pedron PV, de Lima R. Dentoalveolar mandibular changes with self-ligating versus conventional bracket systems: A CBCT and dental cast study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(3):50–57.
47. 51.Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cevidanes LHS, et al. Transversal maxillary dento-alveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self-ligating brackets: A randomized clinical trial using CBCT-scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2011;14(4):222–233.
48. 52.Atik E, Ciǧer S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class i maxillary constriction patients. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(4):615–622.
49. 53.Fleming PS, Lee RT, McDonald T, Pandis N, Johal A. The timing of significant arch dimensional changes with fixed orthodontic appliances: data from a multicenter randomised controlled trial. J Dent 2014;42:1-6
50. 54.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.
51. 55.Mateu ME, Benítez-Rogé S, Iglesias M, Calabrese D, Lumi M, Solla M, et al.Increased interpremolar development with self-ligating orthodontics. A prospective randomized clinical trial. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2018;31(2):104–109.
52. 56.Bashir R, Sonar S, Batra P, Srivastava A, Singla A. Comparison of transverse maxillary dental arch width changes with self-ligating and conventional brackets in patients requiring premolar extraction - A randomised clinical trial. Int Orthod. 2019;17(4):687-692.
53. 57.Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(3):248-253.
54. 58.Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(3):340-7.
55. 59.Berger JL. 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.
56. 60.Pandis N, Nasika M, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(5):646-651.
57. 61.Aras I, Unal I, Huniler G, Aras A. Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets: A cone-beam computed tomography study. J Orofac Orthop. 2018;79(3):181-190.
58. 62.Yi J, Li M, Li Y, Li X, Zhao Z. Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16(1):1-8.
59. 63.Weltman B, Vig KWL, Fields HW, Shanker S, Kaizar EE. Root resorption associated with orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(4):462-476.
60. 64.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.
61. 65.Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(3):395-399.
62. 66.Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):220-227.
63. 67.Chen SSH, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(6):726.e1-726.e18.
64. 68.Johansson K, Lundström F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(5):929-934.
65. 69.O'Dywer L, Littlewood SJ, Rahman S, Spencer RJ, Barber SK, Russell JS. A multi-center randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 1: Treatment efficiency. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(1):142-8.
66. 70.Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(6):738-42.
67. 71.Čelar AG, Schedlberger M, Dörfler P, Bertl MH. Systematic review on self-ligating vs conventional brackets: initial pain, number of visits, treatment time. J Orofac Orthop.2013;74(1):40-51.
68. 72.Alpern MC. Gaining Control with Self-Ligation. Semin Orthod. 2008;14(1):73-86.
69. 73.Scott P, Sherriff M, Dibiase AT, Cobourne MT. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod.2008;30(3):227-232.
70. 74.Rahman S, Spencer RJ, Littlewood SJ, O'Dywer L, Barber SK, Russell JS. A multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 2: Pain perception. Angle Orthod. 2016 Jan;86(1):149-56.
71. 75.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.
72. 76.Bertl MH, Onodera K, Čelar AG. A prospective randomized split-mouth study on pain experience during chairside archwire manipulation in self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2013 Mar;83(2):292-7.
73. 77.Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(3):480-485.
74. 78.Tecco S, D´Attilio M, Tetè S, Festa F. Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(4):380-384.
75. 79.Pringle AM, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ, McKnight M. Prospective randomized clinical trial to compare pain levels associated with 2 orthodontic fixed bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Aug;136(2):160-7.
80.Lai TT, Chiou JY, Lai TC, Chen T, Wang HY, Li CH, Chen MH. Perceived pain for orthodontic patients with conventional brackets or self-ligating brackets over 1 month period: A single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. J Formos Med Assoc. 2020 Jan;119(1 Pt 2):282-289.
76. 81.Yang X, Su N, Shi Z, Xiang Z, He Y, Han X, et al. Effects of self-ligating brackets on oral hygiene and discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Dent Hyg. 2017;15(1): 16-22.
77. 82.Pithon MM, dos Santos RL, Nascimento LE, Ayres AO, Alviano D, Bolognese AM. Do self-ligating brackets favor greater bacterial aggregation? Braz J Oral Sci. 2011;10(3):208-212.
78. 83.Bergamo AZN, Nelson-Filho P, Andrucioli MCD, do Nascimento C, Pedrazzi V, Matsumoto MAN. Microbial complexes levels in conventional and self-ligating brackets. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(4):1037-1046.
79. 84.Pejda S, Varga ML, Milosevic SA, Mestrovic S, Slaj M, Repic D, et al. Clinical and microbiological parameters in patients with self-ligating and conventional brackets during early phase of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(1):133-139.
80. 85.Cardoso Mde A, Saraiva PP, Maltagliati LÁ, Rhoden FK, Costa CC, Normando D, Capelozza Filho L. Alterations in plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation promoted by treatment with self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(2):35-41.
81. 86.Baka ZM, Basciftci FA, Arslan U. Effects of 2 bracket and ligation types on plaque retention: a quantitative microbiologic analysis with real-time polymerase chain reaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(2):260-7.
82. 87.Pandis N, Vlachopoulos K, Polychronopoulou A, Madianos P, Eliades T. Periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2008;11(4):211-5.
83. 88.Pandis N, Papaioannou W, Kontou E, Nakou M, Makou M, Eliades T. Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(1):94-9
84. 89.do Nascimento LEAG, Pithon MM, dos Santos RL, Ayres AO, Alviano DS, Nojima LI, et al. Colonization of Streptococcus mutans on esthetic brackets: self-ligating vs conventional. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(4):72-77.
85. 90.Uzuner FD, Kaygisiz E, Cankaya ZT. Effect of the bracket types on microbial colonization and periodontal status. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(6):1062-7.
86. 91.Kaygisiz E, Uzuner FD, Yuksel S, Taner L, Çulhaoğlu R, Sezgin Y, et al. Effects of self-ligating and conventional brackets on halitosis and periodontal conditions. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(3):468-473.
87. 92.Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T, McLeod J, Covell DA, Maier T, et al. Plaque retention by self-ligating vs elastomeric orthodontic brackets: quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(4):426-427.
88. 93.Nalçacı R, Özat Y, Çokakoğlu S, Türkkahraman H, Önal S, Kaya S. Effect of bracket type on halitosis, periodontal status, and microbial colonization. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(3):479-85.
89. 94.Longoni J, Lopes B, Freires I, Dutra K, Franco A, Parnahos L. Self-ligating versus conventional metallic brackets on Streptococcus mutans retention: A systematic review. Eur J Dent. 2017;11(4):537-547.
90. 95.Arnold S, Koletsi D, Patcas R, Eliades T. The effect of bracket ligation on the periodontal status of adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;54:13-24.
91. 96.Huang J, Li CY, Jiang JH. Effects of fixed orthodontic brackets on oral malodor: A systematic review and meta-analysis according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(14):1-6.
1. 2.Pandis N, Bourauel C, Eliades T. Changes in the stiffness of the ligating mechanism in retrieved active self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(6):834–7.
2. 3.Gandini P, Orsi L, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A. Opening and closure forces of sliding mechanisms of different self-ligating brackets. J Appl Oral Sci. 2013;21(3):231–4.
3. 4.Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2001;4(4):228–34.
4. 5.Brauchlia LM, Steineckb M, Wichelhausc A. Active and passive self-ligation: A myth? Part 1: Torque control. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(4):663–9.
5. 6.Yang X, He Y, Chen T, Zhao M, Yan Y, Wang H, et al. Differences between active and passive self-ligating brackets for orthodontic treatment. Systematic review and meta-analysis based on randomized clinical trials. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78(2):121–8.
6. 7.Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. International Journal of Orthodontia and Dentistry for Children 1935;21:837‐40.
7. 8.Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):216-22.
8. 9.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.
10.Meeran NA. Self-ligating brackets: an update. J Clin Orthod. 2012;46(4):235-41
9. 11.Harradine N. The History and Development of Self-Ligating Brackets. Semin Orthod. 2008;14(1):5–18.
10. 12.Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 May;121(5):472-82
11. 13.Chung M, Nikolai RJ, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Third-order torque and self-ligating orthodontic bracket-type effects on sliding friction. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):551–7.
12. 14.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.e1-12.e6.
13. 15.Badawi HM, Toogood RW, Carey JPR, Heo G, Major PW. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(5):721–8.
14. 16.Al-Thomali Y, Mohamed RN, Basha S. Torque expression in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets: A systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(1):e123–8.
15. 17.Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Traini T, Di Iorio D, D’Attilio M. Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(6):1041–5.
16. 18.Fuck L-M, Wilmes B, Gürler G, Hönscheid R, Drescher D. Friktionsverhalten selbstligierender und konventioneller Bracketsysteme. Informationen aus Orthod & Kieferorthopädie. 2007;39(1):6–17.
17. 19.Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod. 2004;74(2):202–11.
20.Burrow SJ. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: A critical review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(4):442–7.
18. 21.Araujo RC, Bichara LM, De Araujo AM, Normando D. Debris and friction of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets after clinical use. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(4):673–7.
19. 22.Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El-Bialy TH, Flores-Mir C. Frictional resistance in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):592–601.
20. 23.Kim TK, Kim KD, Baek SH. 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):187.e15-187.e24.
24.Ludwig B, Bister D, Baumgaertel S. Self-Ligating Brackets in Orthodontics. Vol.80, The Angle Orthodontist. 2010. 575–584 p.
21. 25.Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J.2005;21(2):123–7.
22. 26.Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Efficiency of mandibular arch alignment with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135: 597-602.
23. 27.Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP, Ho C. Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(2):138.e1-138.e7.
24. 28.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 Oct; 134 (4): 471-478.
25. 29.Megat R, Idris H, Yacob H, Zainal SH. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34(2):176–181.
26. 30.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):208–215.
27. 31.Pesce RE, Uribe F, Janakiraman N, Neace WP, Peterson DR, Nanda R. Evaluation of rotational control and forces generated during first-order archwire deflections: A comparison of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36(3):245–254.
28. 32.Dehbi H, Azaroual MF, Zaoui F, Halimi A, Benyahia H. Therapeutic efficacy of self-ligating brackets: A systematic review. Int Orthod. 2017;15(3):297–311.
29. 33.Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(3):575–584.
30. 34.Machibya FM, Bao X, Zhao L, Hu M. Treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(2):280–285.
31. 35.da Costa Monini A, Júnior LGG, Vianna AP, Martins RP. A comparison of lower canine retraction and loss of anchorage between conventional and self-ligating brackets: a single-center randomized split-mouth controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(4):1047–1053.
32. 36.da Costa Monini A, Gandini LG, Martins RP, Vianna AP. Canine retraction and anchorage loss: Self-ligating versus conventional brackets in a randomized split-mouth study. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(5):846–852.
33. 37.Monini A da C, Gandini LG, Vianna AP, Martins RP, Jacob HB. Tooth movement rate and anchorage lost during canine retraction: A maxillary and mandibular comparison. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(4):559–565.
34. 38.Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM, Weissheimer A, Allgayer S. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets: A randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(2):292–297.
35. 39.de Almeida MR, Herrero F, Fattal A, Davoody AR, Nanda R, Uribe F. A comparative anchorage control study between conventional and self-ligating bracket systems using differential moments. Angle Orthod.2013;83(6):937–942.
36. 40.Zhou Q, ul Haq AAA, Tian L, Chen X, Huang K, Zhou Y. Canine retraction and anchorage loss self-ligating versus conventional brackets: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 136(15):1-9.
37. 41.Malik DES, Fida M, Afzal E, Irfan S. Comparison of anchorage loss between conventional and self-ligating brackets during canine retraction – A systematic review and meta-analysis. Int Orthod. 2020;18(1):41–53.
38. 42.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.
39. 43.Songra G, Clover M, Atack NE, Ewings P, Sherriff M, Sandy JR, et al. Comparative assessment of alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: A single-center randomized controlled trial. 2014;145(5):569–578.
40. 44.Wong H, Collins J, Tinsley D, Sandler J, Benson P . Does the bracket-ligature combination affect the amount of orthodontic space closure over three months? A randomized controlled trial. J Orthod 2013; 40: 155–162
41. 45.Burrow SJ. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):626–633.
42. 46.Yang X, Xue C, El Y, Zhao M, Luo M, Wang P, et al. Transversal changes , space closure , and efficiency of conventional and self-ligating appliances: A quantitative systematic review. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;79(1):1-10
43. 47.Dalstra M, Eriksen H, Bergamini C, Melsen B. Actual versus theoretical torsional play in conventional and self-ligating bracket systems. J Orthod. 2015;42(2):103–113.
44. 48.Pandis N, Strigou S, Eliades T. Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating brackets : a prospective clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2006; 9(4): 193-198.
45. 49.Atik E, Akarsu-Guven B, Kocadereli I, Ciger S. Evaluation of maxillary arch dimensional and inclination changes with self-ligating and conventional brackets using broad archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.2016;149(6):830–837.
46. 50.de Almeida MR, Futagami C, Castro AC, Pedron PV, de Lima R. Dentoalveolar mandibular changes with self-ligating versus conventional bracket systems: A CBCT and dental cast study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(3):50–57.
47. 51.Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cevidanes LHS, et al. Transversal maxillary dento-alveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self-ligating brackets: A randomized clinical trial using CBCT-scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofacial Res. 2011;14(4):222–233.
48. 52.Atik E, Ciǧer S. An assessment of conventional and self-ligating brackets in Class i maxillary constriction patients. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(4):615–622.
49. 53.Fleming PS, Lee RT, McDonald T, Pandis N, Johal A. The timing of significant arch dimensional changes with fixed orthodontic appliances: data from a multicenter randomised controlled trial. J Dent 2014;42:1-6
50. 54.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.
51. 55.Mateu ME, Benítez-Rogé S, Iglesias M, Calabrese D, Lumi M, Solla M, et al.Increased interpremolar development with self-ligating orthodontics. A prospective randomized clinical trial. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2018;31(2):104–109.
52. 56.Bashir R, Sonar S, Batra P, Srivastava A, Singla A. Comparison of transverse maxillary dental arch width changes with self-ligating and conventional brackets in patients requiring premolar extraction - A randomised clinical trial. Int Orthod. 2019;17(4):687-692.
53. 57.Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M, Eliades T. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(3):248-253.
54. 58.Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Sarri G, Lee RT. Comparison of mandibular arch changes during alignment and leveling with 2 preadjusted edgewise appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(3):340-7.
55. 59.Berger JL. 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.
56. 60.Pandis N, Nasika M, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(5):646-651.
57. 61.Aras I, Unal I, Huniler G, Aras A. Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets: A cone-beam computed tomography study. J Orofac Orthop. 2018;79(3):181-190.
58. 62.Yi J, Li M, Li Y, Li X, Zhao Z. Root resorption during orthodontic treatment with self-ligating or conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2016;16(1):1-8.
59. 63.Weltman B, Vig KWL, Fields HW, Shanker S, Kaizar EE. Root resorption associated with orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(4):462-476.
60. 64.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.
61. 65.Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(3):395-399.
62. 66.Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):220-227.
63. 67.Chen SSH, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(6):726.e1-726.e18.
64. 68.Johansson K, Lundström F. Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2012;82(5):929-934.
65. 69.O'Dywer L, Littlewood SJ, Rahman S, Spencer RJ, Barber SK, Russell JS. A multi-center randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 1: Treatment efficiency. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(1):142-8.
66. 70.Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137(6):738-42.
67. 71.Čelar AG, Schedlberger M, Dörfler P, Bertl MH. Systematic review on self-ligating vs conventional brackets: initial pain, number of visits, treatment time. J Orofac Orthop.2013;74(1):40-51.
68. 72.Alpern MC. Gaining Control with Self-Ligation. Semin Orthod. 2008;14(1):73-86.
69. 73.Scott P, Sherriff M, Dibiase AT, Cobourne MT. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod.2008;30(3):227-232.
70. 74.Rahman S, Spencer RJ, Littlewood SJ, O'Dywer L, Barber SK, Russell JS. A multicenter randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: Part 2: Pain perception. Angle Orthod. 2016 Jan;86(1):149-56.
71. 75.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.
72. 76.Bertl MH, Onodera K, Čelar AG. A prospective randomized split-mouth study on pain experience during chairside archwire manipulation in self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2013 Mar;83(2):292-7.
73. 77.Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(3):480-485.
74. 78.Tecco S, D´Attilio M, Tetè S, Festa F. Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(4):380-384.
75. 79.Pringle AM, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ, McKnight M. Prospective randomized clinical trial to compare pain levels associated with 2 orthodontic fixed bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Aug;136(2):160-7.
80.Lai TT, Chiou JY, Lai TC, Chen T, Wang HY, Li CH, Chen MH. Perceived pain for orthodontic patients with conventional brackets or self-ligating brackets over 1 month period: A single-center, randomized controlled clinical trial. J Formos Med Assoc. 2020 Jan;119(1 Pt 2):282-289.
76. 81.Yang X, Su N, Shi Z, Xiang Z, He Y, Han X, et al. Effects of self-ligating brackets on oral hygiene and discomfort: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials. Int J Dent Hyg. 2017;15(1): 16-22.
77. 82.Pithon MM, dos Santos RL, Nascimento LE, Ayres AO, Alviano D, Bolognese AM. Do self-ligating brackets favor greater bacterial aggregation? Braz J Oral Sci. 2011;10(3):208-212.
78. 83.Bergamo AZN, Nelson-Filho P, Andrucioli MCD, do Nascimento C, Pedrazzi V, Matsumoto MAN. Microbial complexes levels in conventional and self-ligating brackets. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(4):1037-1046.
79. 84.Pejda S, Varga ML, Milosevic SA, Mestrovic S, Slaj M, Repic D, et al. Clinical and microbiological parameters in patients with self-ligating and conventional brackets during early phase of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(1):133-139.
80. 85.Cardoso Mde A, Saraiva PP, Maltagliati LÁ, Rhoden FK, Costa CC, Normando D, Capelozza Filho L. Alterations in plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation promoted by treatment with self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets. Dental Press J Orthod. 2015;20(2):35-41.
81. 86.Baka ZM, Basciftci FA, Arslan U. Effects of 2 bracket and ligation types on plaque retention: a quantitative microbiologic analysis with real-time polymerase chain reaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;144(2):260-7.
82. 87.Pandis N, Vlachopoulos K, Polychronopoulou A, Madianos P, Eliades T. Periodontal condition of the mandibular anterior dentition in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2008;11(4):211-5.
83. 88.Pandis N, Papaioannou W, Kontou E, Nakou M, Makou M, Eliades T. Salivary Streptococcus mutans levels in patients with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(1):94-9
84. 89.do Nascimento LEAG, Pithon MM, dos Santos RL, Ayres AO, Alviano DS, Nojima LI, et al. Colonization of Streptococcus mutans on esthetic brackets: self-ligating vs conventional. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013;143(4):72-77.
85. 90.Uzuner FD, Kaygisiz E, Cankaya ZT. Effect of the bracket types on microbial colonization and periodontal status. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(6):1062-7.
86. 91.Kaygisiz E, Uzuner FD, Yuksel S, Taner L, Çulhaoğlu R, Sezgin Y, et al. Effects of self-ligating and conventional brackets on halitosis and periodontal conditions. Angle Orthod. 2015;85(3):468-473.
87. 92.Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T, McLeod J, Covell DA, Maier T, et al. Plaque retention by self-ligating vs elastomeric orthodontic brackets: quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(4):426-427.
88. 93.Nalçacı R, Özat Y, Çokakoğlu S, Türkkahraman H, Önal S, Kaya S. Effect of bracket type on halitosis, periodontal status, and microbial colonization. Angle Orthod. 2014;84(3):479-85.
89. 94.Longoni J, Lopes B, Freires I, Dutra K, Franco A, Parnahos L. Self-ligating versus conventional metallic brackets on Streptococcus mutans retention: A systematic review. Eur J Dent. 2017;11(4):537-547.
90. 95.Arnold S, Koletsi D, Patcas R, Eliades T. The effect of bracket ligation on the periodontal status of adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;54:13-24.
91. 96.Huang J, Li CY, Jiang JH. Effects of fixed orthodontic brackets on oral malodor: A systematic review and meta-analysis according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018;97(14):1-6.