Comparing the effectiveness of the 0.018-inch versus the 0.022-inch bracket slot system in orthodontic treatment:study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician’s choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient’s perception of wearing orthodontic appliances. DISCUSSION: The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338

Dental restorations for oral rehabilitation – testing of laboratory properties versus clinical performance for clinical decision making *

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/73116/1/j.1365-2842.2007.01812.x.pd

Corrosion in Haas expanders with and without use of an antimicrobial agent: an in situ study

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to evaluate in situ the occurrence of corrosion in the soldering point areas between the wire, silver brazing and band in Haas expanders. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four 7-12-year-old patients who needed maxillary expansion with a Haas expander were randomly assigned to two groups of 17 individuals each, according to the oral hygiene protocol adopted during the orthodontic treatment: Group I (control), toothbrushing with a fluoride dentifrice and Group II (experimental), toothbrushing with the same dentifrice plus 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate (Periogard(®)) mouthrinses twice a week. The appliances were removed after approximately 4 months. Fragments of the appliances containing a metallic band with a soldered wire were sectioned at random for examination by stereomicroscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's test at 5% significance level. RESULTS: The analysis by optical microscopy revealed areas with color change suggestive of corrosion in the soldering point areas joining the band and the wire in all specimens of both groups, with no statistically significant difference between the groups (p=1). The peaks of chemical elements (Ni, Fe, Cr, O, C and P) revealed by EDS were also similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: Color changes and peaks of chemical elements suggestive of corrosion were observed in the soldering point areas between the wire, silver brazing and band in both control and experimental groups, which indicate that the 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinses did not influence the occurrence of corrosion in situ