Authors : Dr. Kajal Magar; Dr. Chetan Patil; Dr. Anshuj Thetay; Dr. Pradeep Kawale; Dr. Pradeep Kumar; Dr. Snehal Bhalerao; Dr. Aameer Parkar; Dr. Manorama Wakle

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 8 - August

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/yme3hvcc

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3h26zr6s

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25aug172

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Self-ligating brackets (SLBs) have emerged as a widely used alternative to conventional orthodontic brackets, featuring a built-in mechanism that eliminates the need for elastomeric or wire ligatures to hold the archwire in place. This review summarizes the current evidence on the clinical performance, advantages, and limitations of SLBs. Key purported benefits include reduced frictional resistance, shorter treatment times, improved patient comfort, and enhanced oral hygiene. However, clinical findings remain mixed, with several studies reporting no significant differences in treatment outcomes, discomfort, or duration compared to conventional systems. Additionally, SLBs are associated with higher costs and may present challenges related to bracket bulk and mechanical complexity. Despite their growing popularity, SLB selection should be tailored to individual patient needs, treatment goals, and orthodontist experience. Further long-term randomized controlled trials are needed to establish definitive clinical guidelines.

References :

1. Baxi S, Tripathi AA, Bhatia V, Dubey MP, Kumar P, Bagde H. Self-ligating bracket systems: a comprehensive review. Cureus. 2023 Sep;15(9
2. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1998 Jun;20(3):283–91.
3. Paduano S, Cioffi I, Iodice G, Rapuano A, Silva R. Time efficiency of self-ligating vs conventional brackets in orthodontics: effect of appliances and ligating systems. Prog Orthod. 2008 Jan;9(2):74–80.
4. Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics: a systematic review. J Int Oral Health. 2015 Sep;7(9):108.
5. Mathur P, Tandon R, Chandra P, Dhingra R, Singh P. Self ligating brackets: From past to present. Int J Orthod Dentofac Res. 2021 Oct 28;7:216–22.
6. Harradine N. The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Semin Orthod. 2008 Mar;14(1):5–18.
7. Zhou Q, ul Haq AA, Tian L, et al. Canine retraction and anchorage loss self-ligating versus conventional brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2015 Nov 4;15:136
8. Zhang DP, Liu J, Liu Y, Sun N, Yi JC. Influence of self-ligating and conventional brackets on dental arch width in non-extraction treatment: a meta-analysis. Shanghai J Stomatol. 2014;23(3):367–72.
9. Capistrano A, Cordeiro A, Siqueira DF, et al. From conventional to self-ligating bracket systems: is it possible to aggregate the experience with the former to the use of the latter? Dental Press J Orthod. 2014;19(3):139–57
10. Thapa B, Wu LP. Self-ligating brackets in perspective of friction: A review. Orthod J Nepal. 2013 Dec;3(2):40–3.