Alignment of teeth using different aesthetic orthodontic techniques (conventional buccal technique, lingual technique and Inman Aligner): In vitro study
Keywords:University of Mosul, College of Dentistry, Mosul
Background and objective: An expectation of beautiful smiles at the end of orthodontic treatment is a primary concern to each patient, but is also equally concerned with appearance while undergoing treatment. The development of appliances that combine both acceptable aesthetics for the patient and adequate technical performance for the clinician is the ultimate goal. The aim of this study was to compare three different aesthetic orthodontic techniques with different biomechanics in order to quantify the efficiency of these techniques in alignment of displaced upper right central incisor and investigating the effects of these variables on alignment considering its tipping and rotation.
Methods: The sample consisted of three groups with each group including 15 samples; (1) conventional buccal technique group, (2) lingual technique group and (3) Inman Aligner group, all on a typodont simulation system (dentsply). Preoperative and postoperative digital images were taken and analyzed using Autodesk AutoCAD software.
Results: The conventional buccal technique gave rise to the highest mean of tooth tipping and rotation followed by the lingual technique. The Inman Aligner produced the least level of tooth tipping and rotation.
Conclusion: The best method of alignment is the conventional buccal technique followed by the lingual technique. The least favourable one is the Inman Aligner.
Jena AK, Duggal R, Mehrotra AK. Physical properties and clinical characteristics of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2007; 20(2):1.
Winchester L. Bond strengths of five different ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 1991; 13:293-305.
Harris A, Joseph V, Rossouw P. Shear peel bond strengths of esthetic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1992; 102:215-9.
Angolkar P, Kapila S, Duncanson JMG, Nanda R. Evaluation of friction between ceramic brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 98:499-506.
Pratten D, Popli K, Gemmane N, Gunsolley J. Frictional resistance of ceramic and stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 98:398-403.
Nimitpornusko C, Viwattanatipa N. Introduction to lingual orthodontics. KDJ 2000; 3(2):2.
Profﬁt WR, Fields HW, Ackerman JL. Mechanical principles in orthodontic force control. In: Profﬁt WR (ed.). Contemporary orthodontics. 2000: 326 – 62.
Qureshi A. The Inman Aligner for Anterior Tooth Alignment. Dent Update 2008; 35:377-84.
Huffman DJ, Way DC. A clinical evaluation of tooth movement along arch wires of two different sizes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1983; 83(6):453-9.
Rhee JN, Chun YS and Row J. A comparison between friction and frictionless mechanics with a new typodont simulation system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 119(3):293-9.
Alshahery WG. Upper canine retraction by sliding technique using stainless steel and nickel titanium coil spring. M.Sc. thesis, College of Dentistry, university of Mosul; 2010; Pp: 64, 66-71.
Kircelli ND. Incorporating the forsus fatigue resistant device with the Incognito appliance system. Orthotown 2013; 17(2):38-41.
Yamada K, Kuroda Sh, Deghuchi T, Yamamoto TT, Yashiro T. Distal movement of maxillary molars using miniscrew anchorage in the buccal interradicular region. The Angle Orthodontist 2009; 79(1):78-84.
Geron S, Romano R, Brosh T. Vertical forces in labial and lingual orthodontics applied on maxillary incisors. Angle Orthodontist 2004; 74 (2):6-8.
Alexander CM, Alexander RG, Gorman JC. Lingual orthodontics: a status report. Part 5. Lingual mechanotherapy. J Clin Orthod 1983; 17(2):99-115.
Smith JR, Gorman JC, Kurz C. Keys to success in lingual therapy. Part 1. J Clin Orthod 1986; 20:252-61.
Nanda R, Kuhlberg A. Principles of biomechanics. In: Nanda R, ed. Biomechanics in Clinical Orthodontics. Philadelphia, Penn: WB. 1997; 1–22.
Stamm T, Wiechmann D, Heinecken A, Ehmer U. Relation between second and third order problems in lingual orthodontic treatment. J Lingual Orthod 2000;1:5–11.
Diamond M. Critical aspects of lingual bracket placement. J Clin Orthod 1983;17:688-91.
Diamond M. Improved vision and isolation for direct lingual bonding of the upper arch. J Clin Orthod 1984; 18:814-5.
Scholz RP, Swartz ML. Lingual orthodontics: a status report. Part 3. Indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 1982; 16:812-20.
Liaw YC, Su YY , Lai YL, Lee SY. Stiffness and frictional resistance of a superelastic nickel-titanium orthodontic wire with low-stress hysteresis. Am J Orthod and Dentofac Orthop 2007; 131:578.e12-578.e18
Rinchuse DJ, Rinchuse DJ, Kapur-Wadhwa R. Orthodontic appliance design. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131:76-82.
Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW. The inﬂuence of bracket design on moment production during axial rotation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 104:254-61.
Schudy GF, Schudy FF. Intrabracket space and interbracket distance: critical factors in clinical orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96:281-94.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2015 Saad Sami Gasgoos, Rawand Ahmed Mahmood (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The copyright on any article published in Zanco J Med Sci is retained by the author(s) in agreement with the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial ShareAlike License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0).