Comparative evaluation of self-ligating and conventional pre-adjusted edgewise appliance in management of Class II Div 2 malocclusion: A prospective clinical study 

References

1. Corruccini, RS, Pacciani E. Orthodontistry and dental occlusion in Etruscans. Angle Orthod. 2009; 59(1): 61-4. DOI: 10.1043/0003-
   [Google Scholar] 3219(1989)059<0061:OADOIE>2.0.CO;2
2. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dent Cosmos 1899; 41(3):248-64, 350-7.
3. Godiawala RN, Joshi MR. A cephalometric comparison between class II, division 2 malocclusion and normal occlusion. Angle Orthod. 1974;44(3):262-7. 10.1043/0003-
   [Google Scholar] 3219(1974)044<0262:ACCBCI>2.0.CO;2
4. Robertson, NRW, Hilton, R.: Features of upper central incisors in Class II, Div 2, Angle Orthod.1965 Jan;35: 51-3.
5. Nicol, W. Morphology of the lips in relation to the incisor teeth: A preliminary report, Trans. Br. Sot. Study Orthod.1954;5: 25-8.
6. Backlund, E.: Tooth form and overbite, Trans. Eur. Orthod. Sot.1960;36:97-103.
7. Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1994;106(5):472– 80. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-
   [Google Scholar] 5406(94)70069-9
8. Iwasaki LR, Beatty MW, Randall CJ, Nickel JC. Clinical ligation forces and intraoral friction during sliding on a stainless steel archwire. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2003;123(4):408–15. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.61
   [Google Scholar]
9. Khambay B, Millett D, Mc Hugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26(3):327–32. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/26.3.327
   [Google Scholar]
10. Taloumis LJ, Smith TM, Hondrum SO, Lorton L. Force decay and deformation of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1997;111(1):1–11. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-
    [Google Scholar] 5406(97)70295-6
11. Lam TV, Freer TJ, Brockhurst PJ, Podlich HM. Strength decay of elastomeric ligatures. J Orthod. 2002;29(1):37–42. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/29.1.37
    [Google Scholar]
12. Thurow RC. Letter: elastic ligatures, binding forces, and anchorage taxation. Am J Orthod. 1975; 67(6):694. DOI: 10.1016/0002-
    [Google Scholar] 9416(75)90146-3 541 Parashar et al. / Journal of Contemporary Orthodontics 2025;9(4):534–541
13. Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. Int J Orthod Dent Child.1935; 21(9):837-40. DOI:10.1016/S0097-
    [Google Scholar] 0522(35)90368-9
14. Maijer R, Smith DC. Time saving with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1990;24(1):29–31.
15. Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Frictional resistance of the Damon SL bracket. J Clin Orthod. 1998;32(8):485–9.
16. Thomas S, Birnie DJ, Sherriff M. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of preadjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(5):589–96. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/20.5.589
    [Google Scholar]
17. Krishnan M, Kalathil S, Abraham KM. Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various archwire alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136(5):675-82. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.034
    [Google Scholar]
18. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self‐ ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1(1):52‐ 61
19. Damon DH. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J ClinOrthod 1998; 32:670-80
20. Lima NJ, Falcao IF, Freitas KMS, Lima DV, Valarelli FP, Cancado RH, et al. Comparison of changes in dental arch dimensions in cases treated with conventional appliances and self-ligating Damon system. Open Dent J.2018; 12(1):1137-46. DOI:10.2174/1874210601812011137
    [Google Scholar]
21. Mateu ME, Benítez-Rogé S, Calabrese D, Lumi M, Iglesias M, Méndez P. et al. Prospective clinical study of transverse development with orthodontics with self-ligating brackets. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2020;33(2):112-6.
22. 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):104-9.
23. 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;134(4):470.e1 -8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.018
    [Google Scholar]
24. 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):830-7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.11.024
    [Google Scholar]
25. Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K, Thorgeirsson T, Myrda A, Cevidanes LH. 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 Craniofac Res. 2011;14(4):222-33. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-
    [Google Scholar]
26. 01527.x
27. Andrews LF. Straight wire the concept and appliance. LA Wells Co: San Diego; 1989.
28. Richmond S, Klufas ML, Sywanyk M. Assessing incisor inclination: a non-invasive technique. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(6):721-6. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/20.6.721
    [Google Scholar]
29. Ross VA, Isaacson RJ, Germane N, Rubenstein LK. Influence of vertical growth pattern on faciolingual inclinations and treatment mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1990;98(5): 422-9. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81651-8
    [Google Scholar]
30. Al-Abdwani R, Moles DR, Noar JH. Change of incisor inclination effects on points A and B. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(3):462-7. DOI: 10.2319/041708-218.1
    [Google Scholar]
31. Basciftci FA, Akin M, Ileri Z, Bayram S. Long-term stability of dentoalveolar, skeletal, and soft tissue changes after non-extraction treatment with a self-ligating system. Korean J Orthod. 2014;44(3):119-27. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.3.119
    [Google Scholar]
32. Morina E, Eliades T, Pandis N, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2008 ;30(3):233-8. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn005
    [Google Scholar]
33. 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- 8. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-
    [Google Scholar]
34. 00375.x
35. Alabdullah MM, Burhan AS, Nabawia A, Nawaya F, Saltaji H. Comparative assessment of dental and basal arch dimensions of passive and active self-ligating versus conventional appliances: A randomized clinical trial. J Orofac Orthop. 2023;84(2):74-83. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-022-00407-5
    [Google Scholar]
36. Vajaria R, Begole E, Kusnoto B, Galang MT, Obrez A. Evaluation of incisor position and dental transverse dimensional changes using the Damon system. Angle Orthod. 2011;81(4):647 -52. DOI: 10.2319/071910-420.1
    [Google Scholar]
37. Yazıcıoğlu S, Öz AA, Öz AZ, Arıcı N, Özer M, Arıcı S. Buccolingual Inclination Effects of self-ligating and Conventional Premolar Brackets: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study. Turk J Orthod. 2020;33(2):110-4. DOI:10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2020.19079
    [Google Scholar]