Versions
- 2024-07-12 (2)
- 2021-09-30 (1)
Keywords
Self-ligating brackets
Conventional brackets
How to Cite
Abstract
Self-ligating brackets include a locking mechanism that holds the archwire in the bracket slot. They were created primarily to create a lower friction system, allowing for more efficient sliding mechanics and reducing treatment time.
Objective: This review aims to present all the information available on different self-ligating devices, whether active or passive, in a structured and organized way. This paper sets out to compare their qualities with each other and with conventional devices.
Method: A search was conducted in PubMed and Epistemonikos, regardless of language or year of publication.
Results: Comparisons were made of both active and passive self-ligating brackets and self-ligating brackets with conventional brackets in different clinical situations.
Conclusions No statistically significant difference was found in most clinical situations, except for torque expression, where conventional brackets have a more significant advantage.
References
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
7.Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. International Journal of Orthodontia and Dentistry for Children 1935;21:837‐40.
8.Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):216-22.
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.
Meeran NA. Self-ligating brackets: an update. J Clin Orthod. 2012;46(4):235-41
11.Harradine N. The History and Development of Self-Ligating Brackets. Semin Orthod. 2008;14(1):5–18.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Burrow SJ. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: A critical review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(4):442–7.
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.
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.
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.
Ludwig B, Bister D, Baumgaertel S. Self-Ligating Brackets in Orthodontics. Vol.80, The Angle Orthodontist. 2010. 575–584 p.
25.Miles PG. SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J.2005;21(2):123–7.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
33.Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics a systematic review. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(3):575–584.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
45.Burrow SJ. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(4):626–633.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
66.Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):220-227.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
72.Alpern MC. Gaining Control with Self-Ligation. Semin Orthod. 2008;14(1):73-86.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.