Abstract
Design
Randomised controlled trial.
Intervention
Patients aged 12-30 years requiring fixed orthodontic treatment were eligible and were randomly allocated to treatment with the Insignia customised orthodontic system or the Damon Q noncustomised orthodontic system.
Outcome measure
The primary outcome measure was treatment duration. Secondary outcomes were quality of treatment result; the degree of improvement graded using the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score; number of visits from the first visit after bonding to debonding; number of loose brackets; time required for treatment planning; and number of complaints.
Results
One hundred and eighty patients entered the trial. Four were lost to follow-up and two did not complete treatment, so 174 were analysed. Treatment duration was 1.29 ± 0.35 years in the customised group and 1.24 ± 0.37 years in the noncustomised group. The PAR did not differ significantly between groups. However, the orthodontist had a significant effect on treatment duration, quality of treatment outcome and number of visits (P < 0.05). Compared to the noncustomised group, the customised group had more loose brackets, a longer planning time and more complaints.
Conclusions
The customised orthodontic system was not associated with significantly reduced treatment duration, and treatment quality was comparable between the two systems.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Aldrees AM . Do customized orthodontic appliances and vibration devices provide more efficient treatment than conventional methods? Korean J Orthod 2016; 46: 180–185.
Weber DJ 2nd, Koroluk LD, Phillips C, Nguyen T, Proffit WR . Clinical effectiveness and efficiency of customized vs. conventional preadjusted bracket systems. J Clin Orthod 2013; 47: 261–266.
Richmond S, Shaw WC, O'Brien KD, et al. The development of the PAR Index (Peer Assessment Rating): reliability and validity. Eur J Orthod 1992; 14: 125–139.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for Correspondence: Susan Hyde, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, UCSF School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA, USA. E-mail: susan.hyde@ucsf.edu
Penning EW, Peerlings RHJ, Govers JDM, Rischen RJ, Zinad K, Bronkhorst EM, Breuning KH, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Orthodontics with Customized versus Noncustomized Appliances: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J Dent Res 2017; 96: 1498–1504.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Papakostopoulou, M., Hurst, D. Customised fixed appliance systems and treatment duration. Evid Based Dent 19, 50 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401306
Published:
Version of record:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401306
This article is cited by
-
Antibacterial properties and abrasion-stability: Development of a novel silver-compound material for orthodontic bracket application
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie (2024)
-
Perceptions of orthodontic residents toward the implementation of dental technologies in postgraduate curriculum
BMC Oral Health (2023)
