Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Louisville, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references.

The purposes of this study were to systematically review the evidence on the clinical use of self-ligating brackets (SLBs) and the validity of digital models, and to compare maxillary arch dimensional change during alignment with conventional brackets (CBs) and active or passive self-ligation in a clinical study. In the systematic reviews, multiple databases were searched, study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were performed, and meta-analyses conducted, where appropriate. In a laboratory study a technique to measure molar inclination change incorporating digital models was developed and validated. A multicentre, 3- arm parallel-group trial was conducted with 96 patients aged 16 and above randomly allocated into 3 equal groups (OvationTM, InOvationCTM or Damon QTM) and undergoing alignment with a DamonTM wire sequence for at least 34 weeks. Meta-analyses demonstrated no difference in arch dimensional changes between SLBs and CBs; however, a greater treatment time was found with self-ligation (2.2 months, 95% CI: 0.4, 3.98). The validity of direct measurement on digital models was confirmed in the other review, although meta-analysis was not possible. Complete data were obtained from 87 subjects in the trial. Bracket type had no significant effect on transverse dimensional changes with no difference in inter-molar width between passive self-ligation and CBs (0.32mm, 95% CI: -0.41, 1.05, p= 0.38) or active selfligation (0.4mm, 95% CI: -0.31, 1.11, p= 0.27). Incisor inclination changes with Damon QTM could not be differentiated from the conventional system (0.44 degrees, 95% CI: - 1.93, 2.8, p=0.71) or InOvationCTM (-0.22 degrees, 95% CI: -2.58, 2.14, p=0.85). Based on the systematic reviews, measurement of digital models is a valid alternative to plaster models, while little evidence to support the use of self-ligation was found. In the clinical trial no differences in arch dimensional changes during alignment between CBs and either active or passive self-ligation was found.

No description available.

Aufgabe dieser Studie war es, die Behandlungsgenauigkeit des Incognito®-Bracketsystems zu verifizieren. Die therapeutischen Set-Up- und Abschlussmodelle wurden mittels 3D-Scanner digitalisiert, virtuell überlagert und von jedem einzelnen Zahn die Abweichungen der Rotationen und Translationen in den drei Raumdimensionen berechnet. Die Frontzähne zeigten Abweichungen der Rotationen von weniger als 4,5° und der Translationen von unter 0,4 mm. Außerdem wurden besondere Einflüsse wie Ober- oder Unterkiefer, Wachstum, Bracketgeneration, Frontzahnstellung, 3D-Scanner-Hardware und verwendete Finishing-Bögen analysiert. Der klinisch gewonnene Eindruck konnte somit durch die Messergebnisse der Studie bestätigt werden. Eine überzeugende Übereinstimmung des Endergebnisses mit dem therapeutischen Set-Up ist in der Lingualtechnik mittels individualisierter Brackets realisierbar. / The aim of this study was to investigate the treatment accuracy of Incognito® braces. The therapeutic set-up and final casts were digitalized using a 3D scanner and overlaid. The deviations of the rotations and translations of every single tooth in the three spatial dimensions were calculated. The front teeth showed deviations of the rotations of less than 4.5° and deviations of the translations of less than 0.4 mm. In addition, particular influences such as upper or lower jaw, growth, generation of braces, position of front teeth, 3D scanner hardware and finishing arches were analyzed. The clinical findings could be confirmed by the results of the study. A satisfactory accordance of the final result with the therapeutic set-up in lingual orthodontics is possible using individualized braces.

ABSTRACT This research report quantifies the soft tissue profile changes that occur as a result of the placement of orthodontic brackets. It also assesses whether patients are able to perceive any changes in their own profiles immediately post bonding. Using a standardised photographic technique, profile photographs were taken of a group of patients both before and immediately after the placement of orthodontic brackets. A series of angular and linear measurements were made each on the photographic images using a computer software program. The data obtained from the ‘before’ and ‘after’ photographs were then compared. Patients were also asked several standard questions about their ‘before’ and ‘after’ photographs. The results indicate that the placement of orthodontic brackets can cause changes in the soft tissue profile of patients. Statistically significant changes were found for four of the ten profile measurements that were investigated, namely the Nasolabial Angle, the Maxillo-Mandibular Contour, the Interlabial Angle and the Lower Lip Projection. It was also found that patients are able to perceive changes in their profiles brought about by the placement of orthodontic brackets, and that most are able to correctly recognise which photograph was taken after bracket placement. The majority of patients prefer the photographs of their profiles taken before bracket placement. This study was conducted using a standardised orthodontic bracket. Future research may be carried out to compare profile changes occurring with other bracket systems. This may assist manufacturers in designing brackets that are more comfortable and acceptable for patients.

O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar a quantidade de resina residual após a descolagem de braquetes e a perda e/ou desgaste de esmalte ocorrido durante as fases de: colagem, descolagem e remoção dos remanescentes resinosos, na área do braquete e adjacente. A amostra foi constituída de 150 pré-molares, dividida em dois grupos de acordo com o tipo de material do braquete utilizado: metálico (n=75) e cerâmico (n=75), nas duas primeiras fases do estudo, colagem e descolagem. Os procedimentos de colagem foram realizados de acordo com a International Organization for Standardization (2003), e a descolagem segundo a orientação preconizada pelo fabricante. Na fase de remoção dos remanescentes resinosos foram considerados cinco grupos de acordo com o protocolo de acabamento/polimento e prescrição dos respectivos fabricantes: FF diamantada + Soflex; Pedra Shofu; Dentaurum Carbide; Komet Carbide e Jet Carbide, com auxilio de lupas telescópicas sob a magnificação 3x. A avaliação qualitativa (ARIm e ESI) foi realizada por meio de fotografias digitais (lupa estereoscópica - Olympus SZ61). A avalição quantitativa foi realizada pelo método de medição por Coordenada - Coordinate Measuring Machines (Mitutoyo), mod. Legex CNC 9106 - Perfil de linha. As possíveis diferenças entre os protocolos de acabamento/polimento foram avaliadas pela análise de variância (ANOVA) e pelo teste de comparações múltiplas de Tukey. As quantidades médias de resina residual encontrada na área sob a base do braquete, após acabamento/polimento foram: Diamantada FF + Soflex (10,4 m ±10,5), Pedra Shofu (18,5 m ± 12,1), Dentaurum Carbide (11,2 m ± 11,9), Komet Carbide (9,5 m ± 10,8) e Jet Carbide (22,8 m ± 24,0). E na área adjacente: Diamantada FF + Soflex (14,9 m ± 13,0), Pedra Shofu (22,8 m ±19,5), Dentaurum Carbide (21,4 m ±18,5), Komet Carbide (9,6 m ± 7,7), Jet Carbide (27,8 m ± 24,5). Desta forma, constatou-se que, em geral, os protocolos de acabamento/polimento deixaram maior quantidade de resina residual sobre a área adjacente que na área do braquete, com exceção do protocolo Komet Carbide, que teve desempenho semelhante em ambas as áreas. E as quantidades médias de perda e/ou desgaste do esmalte na área do braquete foram: Diamantada FF + Soflex (-134,9 m ± 56,4), Pedra Shofu ( 39,2 m ± 12,8), Dentaurum Carbide ( 70,5 m ± 27,9), Komet Carbide (-44,8 m ± 14,3) e Jet Carbide ( 68,2 m ± 35,7) na área do braquete, enquanto na área adjacente: Diamantada FF + Soflex (-124,7 m ± 133,1), Pedra Shofu (- 37,9 m ± 25,1), Dentaurum Carbide (- 60,1 m ±32,4), Komet Carbide (-36,6 m ± 19,5) e (Jet Carbide 65,4 m ± 65,0) (Tabela 5.9). Ressalta-se que em ambas as áreas de avaliação, o protocolo (Diamantada FF + Soflex) foi responsável pela maior quantidade de perda e/ou desgaste, diferenciando-se com significância estatística dos demais protocolos. Com base nestes resultados podemos concluir que os protocolos de acabamento/polimento avaliados demonstraram excelente desempenho na remoção dos remanescentes resinosos embora nenhum deles tenha sido capaz de remover totalmente o material de colagem, todos danificaram o esmalte, sendo o protocolo Komet carbide o mais diferenciado. / The objective of this study was to evaluate the quantity of residual resin after removal of brackets and the loss and//or wear-and-tear of enamel occurring during the phases of fixing, detaching and removal of remnant resin in the bracket area and its adjacent. The sample was made up of 150 premolars, divided into two groups in accordance with the type of bracket material used: metal (n=75) and ceramic (n=75), in the two initial phases of study, fixing and removal. Fixing procedures were carried out in accordance with the International Organization for Standardization, (2003), and removal according to orientation advocated by the manufacturer. In the removal of remnant resin phase five groups were considered, all in agreement with the finishing/polishing protocol and prescription of the respective manufacturers: FF diamantada + Soflex; Pedra Shofu; Dentaurum Carbide; Komet Carbide and Jet Carbide, and with the aid of telescopic magnifying glass of three-fold magnification Qualitative evaluation (ARIm and ESI) was done by means of digital photographs(stereoscopic magnifying glass Olympus SZ61). Quantitative evaluation was conducted using the coordinate medication method - Coordinate Measuring Machines (Mitutoyo), mod. Legex CNC 9106 - line profile. Possible differences between finishing/polishing protocols were evaluated via variance analysis (ANOVA), and by Tukey Multiple Comparison test. Median quantities of residual resin found in the region below the base of the bracket, following finishing/polishing were: Diamantada FF + Soflex (10,4 m ±10,5), Pedra Shofu (18,5m ± 12,1), Dentaurum Carbide (11,2 m ± 11,9), Komet Carbide (9,5 m ± 10,8) and Jet Carbide (22,8 m ± 24,0). In this way, it was confirmed that finishing/polishing protocols, in general, left the major part of residual resin below the adjacent area than in the bracket area, with the exception of Komet Carbide protocol, displaying similar performance in both areas Median quantities of loss and/or wearand- tear of enamel in the bracket area were: Diamantada FF + Soflex (-134,9 m ± 56,4), Pedra Shofu ( 39,2 m ± 12,8), Dentaurum Carbide ( 70,5 m ± 27,9), Komet Carbide (-44,8 m ± 14,3) and Jet Carbide ( 68,2 m ± 35,7) in bracket area, while in adjacent area: Diamantada FF + Soflex (-124,7 m ± 133,1), Pedra Shofu (- 37,9 m ± 25,1), Dentaurum Carbide (- 60,1 m ±32,4), Komet Carbide (-36,6 m ± 19,5) and (Jet Carbide 65,4 m ± 65,0) (Table 5.9) Standing out in both areas of evaluation, protocol (Diamantada FF + Soflex) was responsible for the major quantity of loss and /or wear and tear, differentiating itself from the other protocols by significant statistics. Based on these results, we can conclude that the finishing/polishing protocols evaluated, displayed excellent performance in the removal of remnant resin, although none have totally been capable of removing fixing material, and all damaged the enamel, with Komet protocol being the most differentiated.

Die kieferorthopädische Behandlung mit festsitzenden Apparaturen wirft schon immer das Problem der Ästhetik auf. Durch die Verwendung von Keramiken konnten in dieser Hinsicht große Fortschritte gemacht werden. Jedoch stellt sich in der alltäglichen Praxis die Frage, ob ein Keramikbracket einem Metallbracket in allen Belangen gleichwertig ist. Ziel dieser Untersuchung war es, handelsübliche Metall- und Keramikbrackets unter- und miteinander auf ihre Haftfestigkeit zu überprüfen. Dabei wurde auch das neu auf dem Markt erschienene Keramikbracket QuicKlear der Firma Forestadent in den Vergleich mit einbezogen. Neben den Brackets QuicKlear für den mittleren und seitlichen Oberkiefer Schneidezahn, wurden noch drei weitere Keramikbrackets für die Untersuchung verwendet: das Bracket Fascination 2 (Dentaurum), das Bracket InOvation C (GAC) und das Bracket Clarity SL (3M Unitek). Als Metallbrackets wurden, das Bracket Quick 2.0 (Forestadent), das Bracket MiniMono (Forestadent), das Bracket MiniSprint (Forestadent), das Bracket Discovery SL (Dentaurum), das Bracket InOvation R (GAC) und das Bracket SmartClip SL (3M Unitek) verwendet. Um die Versuche zu standardisieren, wurde nach Anleitung der DIN 13990-2 verfahren. Alle Brackets wurden für den Abscherversuch auf extrahierte, unbeschädigte und in Kunststoff eingebettete dritte humane Molaren geklebt. Als Adhäsiv wurde Transbond XT (3M Unitek) verwendet. Jedes Bracket wurde 24 mal an einer Materialprüfmaschine (Typ 1445 der Firma Zwick/Roell) mit einer Abschergeschwindigkeit von 1 mm pro Minute mittels eines Zugscherbügels in okklusal-gingivaler Richtung abgeschert. Um Einflüsse des Mundmilieus zu simulieren, wurden 12 der 24 Proben vor dem Abscherversuch durch Thermocycling (500 Temperaturzyklen für je 20 sek. in 5° C und 55° C temperiertem Wasser) belastet. Für jede einzelne Probe wurde die Abscherkraft in MPa gemessen und der Zahn danach mittels eines Mikroskops auf Schmelzdefekte untersucht. Die Bruchstellenlokalisation wurde dem ARI-Schema von Bishara et al. zugeordnet. Die statistische Auswertung erfolgte mit dem Programm PASW Statistics Version 18. Bei den Metallbrackets zeigten lediglich die Messergebnisse ohne Thermocycling des Brackets InOvation R mit 12,7(±4,7) MPa signifikant niedrigere Unterschiede in Haftfestigkeit und auch ARI. Bei den Ergebnissen mit Thermocycling waren weder bei den Haftfestigkeitswerten noch beim ARI signifikante Unterschiede zu sehen. Das Thermocycling hatte keinen signifikanten Einfluss auf die Ergebnisse. Insgesamt erreichten die Metallbrackets zusammen einen Mittelwert von 17,8(±6,1) MPa ohne Thermocycling und 17,7(±7,8) MPa mit Thermocycling. In 12,5 % aller Proben traten nach dem Abscherversuch Schmelzdefekte auf. Bei den Keramikbrackets ohne Thermocycling gab es keine signifikanten Unterschiede innerhalb der Haftfestigkeiten. Beim ARI unterschied sich das zusätzlich zur mechanischen Retention noch durch Silanisierung chemisch haftende Bracket Fascination 2 signifikant höher als die Brackets InOvation C und Clarity SL. Bei den Werten mit Thermocycling unterschied sich in den Haftfestigkeitswerten das Bracket Fascination 2 signifikant höher als das Bracket InOvation C. Beim ARI unterschied sich Fascination 2 signifikant höher als InOvation C und Clarity SL, sowie QuicKlear für den OK 2er signifikant höher als InOvation C. Thermocycling hatte lediglich bei den Haftfestigkeitswerten des Brackets Clarity SL einen signifikant erhöhenden Einfluss. Insgesamt erreichten die Keramikbrackets im Mittel ohne Thermocycling einen Wert von 12,8(±4,5) MPa und mit Thermocycling einen Wert von 13,7(±5) MPa. Lediglich bei einer Probe (Bracket Fascination 2) war ein Schmelzdefekt nach dem Abscheren zu sehen. Metallbrackets unterschieden sich ohne und mit Thermocycling hoch signifikant höher von den Keramikbrackets, wobei der ARI bei den Metallbrackets die Tendenz zu Werten von 3 und höher hatte. Beim silanisierten Keramikbracket Fascination 2 war ein ähnlich hohes Auftreten von ARI 3 und höher zu erkennen. Die Keramikbrackets InOvation C und Clarity SL zeigten dagegen eher niedrigere ARI Werte. Alle gemessenen Brackets erreichten die in der Literatur geforderten minimalen Haftwerte für eine klinische Anwendung. Die rein mechanisch haftenden Keramikbrackets waren dabei mit niedrigeren Haftfestigkeitswerten und keinem Auftreten von Schmelzdefekten den Metall- und chemisch haftenden Keramikbrackets überlegen. Auch das neu auf dem Markt erschienene Bracket QuicKlear ordnet sich in die Werte anderer handelsüblicher Keramikbrackets ein und kann als potentielle Alternative angesehen werden. Das silanisierte Keramikbracket Fascination 2 zeigt durch höhere Abscherkräfte und ARI-Werte ein schlechtes Verhältnis zwischen ausreichendem Haftverbund und sicherer Entfernbarkeit. / The orthodontic treatment with tight apparatuses always raises the problem of the aesthetics. Big progress could be made in this regard by the use of ceramics. However, the question in practice is whether a ceramic bracket and a metal bracket is equivalent in all interests. The aim of this study was to check customary metal and ceramic brackets for their bonding strength. Besides, the new available ceramic bracket QuicKlear designed by Forestadent was also incorporated in the testing. Beside the brackets QuicKlear for the middle and lateral upper jaw incisor, another three other ceramic brackets were used for the investigation: the bracket Fascination 2 (Dentaurum), the bracket InOvation C (GAC) and the bracket Clarity SL (3M Unitek). As metal brackets were used, the bracket Quick 2.0 (Forestadent), the bracket Minimono (Forestadent), the bracket Minisprint (Forestadent), the bracket Discovery SL (Dentaurum), the bracket InOvation R (GAC) and the bracket Smart clip SL (3M Unitek). To standardize the attempts, the DIN 13990-2 was used. All brackets were bonded on extracted, intact third human molars. Trans-Bond XT (3M Unitek) was used as adhesive. Each bracket was sheared 24 times with a material testing machine (type 1445 by Zwick/Roell) with a shearing speed of 1 mm per minute occlusal gingival direction. To simulate influence of the oral environment, 12 of 24 tests were loaded before the shear test by thermocycling (500 temperature cycles for 20 sec. in 5 ° C and 55 ° C tempered water). For every single test the bonding strength was measured in MPa. Afterwards each tooth was examined for enamel defects under a microscope. The crack localization became assigned to the ARI pattern by Bishara et al. The statistical evaluation was collected with the program PASW Statistics version 18. Within the metal brackets merely the results of the bracket InOvation R without thermocycling (12.7 (±4.7) MPa) showed significantly lower differences in bonding strength and ARI. No significant differences between the results after thermocycling could be found for bonding strength and for ARI. The thermocycling had no significant influence on the results. All together the metal brackets reached an average from 17.8 (±6.1) MPa without thermocycling and 17.7 (±7.8) MPa after thermocycling. In 12.5% of all tests enamel defects appeared after shearing. The ceramic brackets without thermocycling showed no significant differences for bonding strength. For ARI the bracket Fascination 2 with its mechanical and chemical retention differed significantly higher than the brackets InOvation C and Clarity SL. The values of bond strength for the bracket Fascination 2 after thermocycling differed significantly higher to the values of the bracket InOvation C. For ARI Fascination 2 differed significantly higher than InOvation C and Clarity SL, as well as QuicKlear (OK 2nd) significantly higher than InOvation C. Thermocycling had an increasing influence on the bond strength values of the bracket Clarity SL. All together the ceramic brackets reached on average a value from 12.8 (±4.5) MPa without thermocycling and after thermocycling a value of 13.7 (±5) MPa. Only one enamel defect could be found after shearing test (bracket Fascination 2). Metal brackets differed without and after thermocycling significantly higher from the ceramic brackets. The ARI of metal brackets showed the trend towards values of 3 and higher. The ceramic bracket Fascination 2 showed as well an ARI value of 3 or higher. In contrast the ceramic brackets InOvation C and Clarity SL showed lower values of ARI. All measured brackets reached the minimum values demanded in the literature for clinical use. Besides, the mechanically bonded ceramic brackets showed lower bonding strength values and no appearance of enamel defects compared to the metal brackets and chemically bonded ceramic brackets. Also the bracket QuicKlear adjusts itself to the values of other customary ceramic brackets and can be seen as a potential alternative. The ceramic bracket Fascination 2 showed a bad relation between sufficient bonding and safe debonding caused by higher bond strength and ARI values.

No description available.

The magnetic spherical pendulum is a mechanical system consisting of a pendulum whereof the bob is electrically charged, moving under the influence of gravitation and the magnetic field induced by a magnetic monopole deposited at the origin. Physically not directly realizable, it turns out to be equivalent to a reduction of the Lagrange top. This work is essentially the logbook of our attempts at understanding the simplest contemporary approaches to the magnetic spherical pendulum.

Thesis (M.S.)--Ohio University, June, 2001. / Title from PDF t.p.