Authors : Dr. Padmashri Narayanan; Dr. Shailaja A. M.; Dr. Madhusudhan V.; Dr. Chethan Kumar D.; Dr. Pachaiyappan G.

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 10 - October

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/ysu64m4k

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/47dmre4t

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25oct241

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 : Fixed orthodontic mechanotherapy has become a cornerstone in achieving predictable tooth movement and functional occlusion. The MBT system, although widely adopted, presents limitations due to its standardized bracket prescriptions that may not accommodate individual anatomical variations. Challenges such as incomplete torque expression, reliance on precise bracket placement, and increased friction with conventional ligatures often necessitate additional adjustments, thereby extending treatment time and compromising efficiency. These drawbacks have driven the exploration of alternative strategies that extend beyond MBT. Contemporary approaches emphasize reduced friction mechanics, digital customization, and patient-centered treatment planning. Advances in computer-aided design and manufacturing enable custom brackets and archwires tailored to specific tooth morphology, while integration of three- dimensional imaging improves diagnostic accuracy and precision in appliance placement. Innovations such as self-ligating systems, digitally guided workflows, and bioadaptive force concepts are reshaping clinical practice by enhancing comfort, efficiency, and treatment predictability. Looking forward, the incorporation of artificial intelligence, smart materials, and real-time monitoring technologies is expected to further individualize orthodontic care. This review critically evaluates the shortcomings of MBT mechanotherapy and highlights the transition toward innovative, technology-driven systems that promise to redefine fixed orthodontics in the future.

Keywords : Fixed Mechanotherapy; MBT System; Orthodontic Biomechanics; Digital Orthodontics; Customized Appliances; Future Perspectives.

References :

1. J. Liu, C. Zhang, and Z. Shan, “Application of artificial intelligence in orthodontics: current state and future perspectives,” Healthcare (Basel), vol. 11, no. 20, p. 2760, Oct. 2023. doi: 10.3390/healthcare11202760. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11202760
2. N. F. Nordblom, M. Büttner, and F. Schwendicke, “Artificial intelligence in orthodontics: critical review,” J. Dent. Res., vol. 103, no. 6, pp. 577–584, Jun. 2024. doi: 10.1177/00220345241235606.
3. B. A. Mendes, R. A. Neto Ferreira, M. M. Pithon, M. C. Horta, and D. D. Oliveira, “Physical and chemical properties of orthodontic brackets after 12 and 24 months: in situ study,” J. Appl. Oral Sci., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 194–203, Jun. 2014. doi: 10.1590/1678-775720130528.
4. R. Srinidhi, S. Dilip, A. Gopinath, R. Kannan, S. Chakravathi, and D. Davis, “Orthodontic bracket materials – an up-to-date review,” Int. J. Chem. Biochem. Sci., vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 45–54, 2023.
5. C. Gioka, C. Bourauel, S. Zinelis, T. Eliades, N. Silikas, and G. Eliades, “Titanium orthodontic brackets: structure, composition, hardness and ionic release,” Dent. Mater., vol. 20, no. 7, pp. 693–700, Sep. 2004. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.02.008.
6. C. Park, H. V. Giap, J. S. Kwon, K. H. Kim, S. H. Choi, J. S. Lee, and K. J. Lee, “Dimensional accuracy, mechanical property, and optical stability of zirconia orthodontic bracket according to yttria proportions,” Sci. Rep., vol. 13, no. 1, p. 20418, Nov. 2023.
7. R. Pandey, R. Kamble, and H. Kanani, “Revolutionizing smiles: advancing orthodontics through digital innovation,” Cureus, vol. 16, no. 7, p. e64086, Jul. 2024. doi: 10.7759/cureus.64086.
8. X. Guo, M. Zhao, Y. Li, and H. Wang, “AI-driven dynamic orthodontic treatment management,” Front. Dent. Med., vol. 6, p. 1612441, 2025. doi: 10.3389/fdmed.2025.1612441.
9. N. Wahl, “Orthodontics in 3 millennia. Chapter 1: antiquity to the mid-19th century,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., vol. 127, no. 2, pp. 255–259, 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.11.013. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.11.013
10. W. A. Andrews,“The straight-wire appliance: individualization versus customization,” J. World Fed. Orthod., vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 166–172, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.ejwf.2023.06.004.Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2023.06.004
11. E. L. Dellinger, “A scientific assessment of the straight-wire appliance,” Am. J. Orthod., vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 290–299, 1978. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90135-5. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90135-5
12. T. D. Creekmore and R. L. Kunik, “Straight wire: the next generation,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., vol. 104, no. 1, pp. 8–20, 1993. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(93)70023H.Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(93)70023-H
13. Y. A. Yassir, M. K. Sofar, G. T. McIntyre, and D. R. Bearn, “Clinical effectiveness of customized versus noncustomized orthodontic appliances: a systematic review,” J. Orthod. Sci., vol. 13, article 26, 2024. doi: 10.4103/jos.jos_46_24.Available:https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_46_24
14. R. P. McLaughlin and J. C. Bennett, “The transition from standard edgewise to preadjusted appliance systems,” J. Clin. Orthod., vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 142–153, 1989.Available:https://www.jcoonline.com/archive/1989/03/142-the-transition-from-standard-edgewise-to-preadjusted-appliance-systems/
15. Amurdhavani B.S. “A review on MBT system in orthodontics.” Research J. Pharm. Technol., vol. 9, no. 9, pp. 1529–1532, 2016. doi: 10.5958/0974-360X.2016.00299.7.Available:https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-360X.2016.00299.7
16. P. Namdar, E. Bardideh, F. Lal Alizadeh, A. Jahanbin, and N. Eslami, “Comparison of Roth and McLaughlin-Bennet-Trevisi prescriptions as two popular pre-adjusted orthodontic bracket systems: a systematic review,” Orthod. Waves, vol. 79, nos. 2–3, pp. 65–75, 2020. doi: 10.1080/13440241.2020.1777798.Available:https://doi.org/10.1080/13440241.2020.1777798
17. M. Jain, J. Varghese, R. Mascarenhas, S. Mogra, S. Shetty, and N. Dhakar, “Assessment of clinical outcomes of Roth and MBT bracket prescription using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System,” Contemp. Clin. Dent., vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 307–312, 2013. doi: 10.4103/0976-237X.118361. Available: https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.118361
18. B. Moesi, F. Dyer, and P. E. Benson, “Roth versus MBT: does bracket prescription have an effect on the subjective outcome of pre-adjusted edgewise treatment?,” Eur. J. Orthod., vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 236–243, 2013. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr126. Available: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr126
19. J. J. Eberting, S. R. Straja, and O. C. Tuncay, “Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets,” Clin. Orthod. Res., vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 228–234, 2001. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40407.x.Available:https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40407.x
20. J. Harradine, “Self-ligating brackets: Where are we now?,” J. Orthod., vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 262–273, 2003. doi:10.1093/ortho/30.3.262.Available:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14530482/
21. C. Fontinha, P. M. Cattaneo, and M. A. Cornelis, “How efficient is customized lingual orthodontics? an assessment of treatment outcome,” Orthod. Craniofac. Res., 2022. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12494. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12494
22. R. Sachdeva, “SureSmile technology in a patient–centered orthodontic practice,” J. Clin. Orthod., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 245–253, 2001. Available: https://www.jco-online.com/archive/2001/04/245-suresmile-technology-in-a-patient-centered-orthodontic-practice/
23. V. V. Mundhada, V. V. Jadhav, and A. Reche, “A review on orthodontic brackets and their application in clinical orthodontics,” Cureus, vol. 15, no. 10, e46615, Oct. 2023. doi: 10.7759/cureus.46615. Available: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.46615
24. J. Hegele, L. Seitz, C. Claussen, U. Baumert, H. Sabbagh, and A. Wichelhaus, “Clinical effects with customized brackets and CAD/CAM technology: a prospective controlled study,” Prog. Orthod., vol. 22, no. 1, p. 40, Dec. 2021. doi: 10.1186/s40510-021-00386-0.
25. C. Fontinha, P. M. Cattaneo, and M. A. Cornelis, “How efficient is customized lingual orthodontics? an assessment of treatment outcome,” Orthod. Craniofac. Res., 2022. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12494. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12494
26. R. K. Satapathy, S. Verma, J. Sowmya, and P. Chitra, “Torque moments and stress analysis in two passive self-ligating brackets across different incisor inclinations: a 3-dimensional finite element study,” J. Oral Biol. Craniofac. Res., vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 487–493, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2024.06.002.
27. S. J. Bowman and A. Carano, “The Butterfly System,” J. Clin. Orthod., vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 274–287, 2004. doi: 10.1681/clinorthod.2004.38.5.274. Available: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15178882/
28. E. M. F. Franco, F. P. Valarelli, J. B. Fernandes, R. H. Cançado, and K. M. S. de Freitas, “Comparative study of torque expression among active and passive self-ligating and conventional brackets,” Dental Press J. Orthod., vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 68–74, 2015. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.20.6.068074.oar.Available:https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.20.6.068-074.oar
29. K. H. Attia, S. A. Elkordy, M. ElKoussy, and A. M. Abouelezz, “Are self-ligating brackets’ slots dimensions accurate?,” Int. Orthod., vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 613–622, 2018. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2018.09.001. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2018.09.001
30. A. Aiyar, G. Scuzzo, G. Scuzzo, and C. Verna, “Hybrid orthodontics for aesthetic deep bite correction—case series and general clinical considerations,” Oral, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 126–147, 2024. doi: 10.3390/oral4020011. Available: https://doi.org/10.3390/oral4020011
31. A. Auluck, “Lingual orthodontic treatment: what is the current evidence base?,” J. Orthod., vol. 40, suppl. 1, pp. S27S33,2013.doi:10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000073.Available:https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000073
32. Abdullah M. Koaban, Joharah M. Alwadai, Aseel M. Alghamdi, Faisal J. Alsiwat, Almiqdad I. Dashti, Mohammad M. Nasser, Mohammed A. Alhazmi, Essa M. Aljaroudi, Salem B. Alanazi, Waleed A. Almanjhi, “Recent Advances in Orthodontic Brackets: From Aesthetics to Smart Technologies,” Cureus, vol. 17, no. 6, 2025. doi: 10.7759/cureus.85385. Available: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.85385
33. G. Rossini, S. Parrini, T. Castroflorio, A. Deregibus, and C.L. Debernardi, “Diagnostic accuracy and measurement sensitivity of digital models for orthodontic purposes: a systematic review,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., vol. 149, no. 2, pp. 161–170, 2016. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.029.Available:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.029
34. T. Grünheid, S.D. McCarthy, and B.E. Larson, “Clinical use of a direct chairside oral scanner: An assessment of accuracy, time, and patient satisfaction,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., vol. 146, no. 5, pp. 673–682, 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.023. Available: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25439218/
35. K. Johansson, H. Christell, A. Brechter, and L. Paulsson, “Evaluation of external apical root resorption and the relevance of intermediate radiography in non-extraction treatment with fixed appliances for adolescents with crowding: a multicenter randomized controlled trial using CBCT,” Orthod. Craniofac. Res., 2025. doi: 10.1111/ocr.12903.Available:https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12903
36. K.H. Yu, A.L. Beam, and I.S. Kohane, “Artificial intelligence in healthcare,” Nat. Biomed. Eng., vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 719–731, 2018. doi: 10.1038/s41551-018-0305-z. Available: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31015651/