Limits...
Lingual orthodontic treatment duration: performance of two different completely customized multi-bracket appliances (Incognito and WIN) in groups with different treatment complexities.

Knösel M, Klang E, Helms HJ, Wiechmann D - Head Face Med (2014)

Bottom Line: ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the main effects 'appliance type', and 'severity', independent of each other.In terms of treatment duration, the WIN appliance performed significantly better than the Incognito appliance.Consequently, subjects treated with the WIN appliance are expected to be exposed to lower risks of the typical side-effects associated with longer multi-bracket treatment durations, such as root resorption and enamel decalcification.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Göttingen (UMG), 37099 Göttingen, Germany. mknoesel@yahoo.de.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The occurrence of side-effects of fixed orthodontic therapy, such as white-spot lesions and root resorption, are known to be significantly more frequent with increasing duration of treatment. Multi-bracket treatment should be as short as possible, in order to minimize the risks of collateral damage to teeth. The aim of this non-randomized clinical trial was to compare treatment duration with each of two types of customized lingual orthodontic appliances (Incognito, 3 M-Unitek; WIN, DW LingualSystems), taking into account treatment complexity. The -hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in active orthodontic treatment duration between them.

Methods: Of 402 potentially eligible participants, a population sample of n = 376 subjects (n(Incognito) = 220; n(WIN) = 156; m/f 172/204; mean age ± SD 17.3 ± 7.7Y) treated in one orthodontic center (Bad Essen, Germany) with completely customized lingual appliances in upper and lower permanent dental arches was recruited with the inclusion criterion of initiated and completed lingual multi-bracket treatment within the assessment period of April 1st 2010 - Nov 30, 2013, and the exclusion criterion of less than 24 bracketed teeth. We used four-factorial ANOVA to assess the impact of the following factors: initial degree of severity of malocclusion (mild to moderate, S1; severe, S2), appliance type (Incognito; WIN), sex, and age group (<=16; >16 Y) on the duration of lingual multi-bracket treatment.

Results: Overall, mean treatment duration was 21.7 (SD 7.2) months, which was significantly shorter for WIN for both sub-groups of treatment complexity (S1: 17.96 mo; S2: 20.49 mo) compared to Incognito (S1: 22.7 mo; S2: 29.79 mo). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the main effects 'appliance type', and 'severity', independent of each other. Therefore, the -hypothesis was rejected.

Conclusion: In terms of treatment duration, the WIN appliance performed significantly better than the Incognito appliance. Consequently, subjects treated with the WIN appliance are expected to be exposed to lower risks of the typical side-effects associated with longer multi-bracket treatment durations, such as root resorption and enamel decalcification.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Distribution of subjects’ ages at the start of treatment separated by appliance type and sex:T-Test revealed no significant difference in terms of age of subjects between the two appliance groups (WIN, Incognito) (mean/SD Incognito: 17.3 Y/7.2; WIN 17.4 Y/8.4; p = 0.85).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4228173&req=5

Fig7: Distribution of subjects’ ages at the start of treatment separated by appliance type and sex:T-Test revealed no significant difference in terms of age of subjects between the two appliance groups (WIN, Incognito) (mean/SD Incognito: 17.3 Y/7.2; WIN 17.4 Y/8.4; p = 0.85).

Mentions: Overall, mean lingual orthodontic treatment duration was 21.7 (SD 7.2) months, which was significantly shorter in patients treated with the WIN appliance, for both sub-groups of treatment complexities (S1: 17.96 mo, p < 0.0001; S2: 20.49 mo, p = 0.0006) compared to Incognito (S1: 22.7 mo; S2: 29.79 mo; Tables 1 and 2; Figure 7). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the main effects ‘appliance type’, and ‘severity’, not dependent on each other (Tables 3, 4 and 5; Figures 8, 9 and 10). Using the Pearson Chi-square test, no significant difference was found in terms of frequencies of bracket losses (p = 0.24, Table 1). Table 2


Lingual orthodontic treatment duration: performance of two different completely customized multi-bracket appliances (Incognito and WIN) in groups with different treatment complexities.

Knösel M, Klang E, Helms HJ, Wiechmann D - Head Face Med (2014)

Distribution of subjects’ ages at the start of treatment separated by appliance type and sex:T-Test revealed no significant difference in terms of age of subjects between the two appliance groups (WIN, Incognito) (mean/SD Incognito: 17.3 Y/7.2; WIN 17.4 Y/8.4; p = 0.85).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4228173&req=5

Fig7: Distribution of subjects’ ages at the start of treatment separated by appliance type and sex:T-Test revealed no significant difference in terms of age of subjects between the two appliance groups (WIN, Incognito) (mean/SD Incognito: 17.3 Y/7.2; WIN 17.4 Y/8.4; p = 0.85).
Mentions: Overall, mean lingual orthodontic treatment duration was 21.7 (SD 7.2) months, which was significantly shorter in patients treated with the WIN appliance, for both sub-groups of treatment complexities (S1: 17.96 mo, p < 0.0001; S2: 20.49 mo, p = 0.0006) compared to Incognito (S1: 22.7 mo; S2: 29.79 mo; Tables 1 and 2; Figure 7). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the main effects ‘appliance type’, and ‘severity’, not dependent on each other (Tables 3, 4 and 5; Figures 8, 9 and 10). Using the Pearson Chi-square test, no significant difference was found in terms of frequencies of bracket losses (p = 0.24, Table 1). Table 2

Bottom Line: ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the main effects 'appliance type', and 'severity', independent of each other.In terms of treatment duration, the WIN appliance performed significantly better than the Incognito appliance.Consequently, subjects treated with the WIN appliance are expected to be exposed to lower risks of the typical side-effects associated with longer multi-bracket treatment durations, such as root resorption and enamel decalcification.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center Göttingen (UMG), 37099 Göttingen, Germany. mknoesel@yahoo.de.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The occurrence of side-effects of fixed orthodontic therapy, such as white-spot lesions and root resorption, are known to be significantly more frequent with increasing duration of treatment. Multi-bracket treatment should be as short as possible, in order to minimize the risks of collateral damage to teeth. The aim of this non-randomized clinical trial was to compare treatment duration with each of two types of customized lingual orthodontic appliances (Incognito, 3 M-Unitek; WIN, DW LingualSystems), taking into account treatment complexity. The -hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference in active orthodontic treatment duration between them.

Methods: Of 402 potentially eligible participants, a population sample of n = 376 subjects (n(Incognito) = 220; n(WIN) = 156; m/f 172/204; mean age ± SD 17.3 ± 7.7Y) treated in one orthodontic center (Bad Essen, Germany) with completely customized lingual appliances in upper and lower permanent dental arches was recruited with the inclusion criterion of initiated and completed lingual multi-bracket treatment within the assessment period of April 1st 2010 - Nov 30, 2013, and the exclusion criterion of less than 24 bracketed teeth. We used four-factorial ANOVA to assess the impact of the following factors: initial degree of severity of malocclusion (mild to moderate, S1; severe, S2), appliance type (Incognito; WIN), sex, and age group (<=16; >16 Y) on the duration of lingual multi-bracket treatment.

Results: Overall, mean treatment duration was 21.7 (SD 7.2) months, which was significantly shorter for WIN for both sub-groups of treatment complexity (S1: 17.96 mo; S2: 20.49 mo) compared to Incognito (S1: 22.7 mo; S2: 29.79 mo). ANOVA revealed a significant influence of the main effects 'appliance type', and 'severity', independent of each other. Therefore, the -hypothesis was rejected.

Conclusion: In terms of treatment duration, the WIN appliance performed significantly better than the Incognito appliance. Consequently, subjects treated with the WIN appliance are expected to be exposed to lower risks of the typical side-effects associated with longer multi-bracket treatment durations, such as root resorption and enamel decalcification.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus