Authors : Dr. Sharath Kumar Shetty; Dr. Bopanna K. M.; Dr. Mahesh Kumar

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 4 - April

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mr2y9yvw

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/yeymjekh

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24APR1179

Abstract : Self-ligating bracket systems are accepted more by orthodontists nowadays. This is because of their superior quality, improved reliability and ease of use. However, it might also be related to claims of superior function made by the manufacturers of these appliances. In particular, the Damon appliance system claims to offer significant advantages to both orthodontist and patient over conventional-ligation and other forms of self-ligated appliances. We have reviewed present literature relating to use of the Damon appliance system. There is some evidence to suggest this appliance may lead to reductions in chairside time for the orthodontist, particularly those experienced with this system, in comparison to conventional-ligation. There is no high quality evidence that treatment with the Damon appliance takes place more quickly or gives a superior occlusal or aesthetic result. The best available evidence would suggest there is no difference in treatment outcome or time, at least in extraction cases. There is no evidence that treatment with the Damon appliance is more stable. Claims relating to improved clinical performance of the Damon appliance system are currently being made to orthodontists and patients that are not substantiated in the scientific literature.

Keywords : Damon system, Self-ligation, Evidence, Treatment efficiency,SLB.

References :

1. Paduano S, Cioffi I, lodice G, Rapuano A, Silva R. Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems. Prog Orthod. 2008;9(2):74-80.
2. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, andpatient satisfaction comparisons of Damonand conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):228—34.
3. Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre- adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(5):589-96.
4. Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Frictional resistance of the Damon SL bracket. J Clin Orthod. 1998;32(8):485-9.
5. Tecco S, D’Attilio M, Tete S, Festa F. Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self- ligating orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod. 2009;3l(4):38a. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjp003.
6. Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs selfligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(3): 395-9. doi: 10.1016/ j.ajodo. 2005.07.018.
7. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):220-7.
8. Hugo T, Fredrik B. The smartclip Self-ligating Aplliance System. Semin Orthod 2008;14:87-100.
9. Reicheneder CA, Gedrange T, Berrisch S, Proff P, Baumert U, Faltermeier A, Muessig D. conventionally ligated versus self- ligating metal bracket — a comparative study. Eur J Orthod. 2008;30:654-660.
10. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Self-Ligating Aplliances: Evolution or Revolution? J Clin Orthod. 2008; 32:641-651.
11. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL. Orthodontics: Current principles and techniques. St Louis: Mosby, 2000, Edition 4“: 717-51.
12. N Harradine. The History and Development of Self- Ligating Brackets. Semin Orthod 2008; 14:5-18.
13. JL Berger. The SPEED System: An Overview of the Appliance and Clinical Performance. Semin Orthod 2008; 14:54-63.
14. Hanson GH. The SPEED system: A report on the development of a new edgewise appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1980; 78:243—265.
15. Damon DH: Treatment of the face with biocompatible orthodontics, in Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL (eds): Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. St Louis, Elsevier Mosby, 2005, pp 753-831.
16. Srinivas S: Comparison of canine retraction with selfligated and conventional ligated brackets—a clinical study. Thesis in fulfillment of postgraduate degree, Tamilnadu University, Chennai, India, 2003.
17. Harradine NWT: Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 4:220-227, 2001
18. Maijer R, Smith DC: Time saving with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 24:29-31, 1990.
19. Shivapuja PK, Berger J: A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 106:472- 480, 1994
20. Voudouris JC: Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 111:119-140, 1997.
21. Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ: Treatment efficiency of conventional versus self-ligating brackets: the effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131:395-399, 2007.
22. Damon D. Damon System: The Workbook. 2004.
23. Damon D. The Damon low-friction bracket: a biologically compatible straight-wire system. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32: 670-80.
24. Krishnan V, Davidovitch Z. Cellular: molecular, and tissue level reactions to orthodontic force. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129: 469el-32.
25. Quinn RS, Yoshikawa DK. A reassessment of force magnitude in orthodontics. Am J Orthod. 1985; 88: 252—60.
26. Ren Y, Maltha JC, Van’t Hof MA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Age effect on orthodontic tooth movement in rats. J Dent Res 2003; 82: 38—42.
27. Ren Y, Maltha JC, Van’t Hof MA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Optimum force magnitude for orthodontic tooth movement: a mathematic model. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 71-77.