Comparing the Effectiveness of the 0.018-inch Versus the 0.022-inch Bracket Slot System in Orthodontic Treatment: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Overview

Journal Trials

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialties General Medicine
Pharmacology

Date 2014 Oct 8

PMID 25288125

Citations 2

Authors

Ahmed M F El-Angbawi

David R Bearn

Grant T McIntyre

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Edgewise fixed orthodontic appliances are available in two different bracket slot sizes (0.018 and 0.022 inch). Both systems are used by clinicians worldwide with some orthodontists claiming the superiority and clinical advantages of one system over the other. However, the scientific evidence supporting this area is scarce and weak. This leaves the clinician's choice of bracket slot system to clinical preference. We aim to compare the 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch pre-adjusted bracket slot systems in terms of the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment.

Methods/design: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial, undertaken in the secondary care hospital environment in the NHS Tayside region of Scotland (United Kingdom). A total of 216 orthodontic patients will be recruited in three centers in secondary care hospitals in NHS Tayside. The participants will be randomly allocated to treatment with either the 0.018-inch or 0.022-inch bracket slot systems (n = 108 for each group) using Victory series™ conventional pre-adjusted bracket systems (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, United States). Baseline records and outcome data collected during and at the end of orthodontic treatment will be assessed. The primary outcome measures will be the duration of orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches. The secondary outcome measures will be the number of scheduled appointments for orthodontic treatment in the maxillary and mandibular arches, treatment outcome using Peer Assessment Rating index (PAR), orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (as measured using periapical radiographs) and the patient's perception of wearing orthodontic appliances.

Discussion: The results from the current study will serve as evidence to guide the clinician in deciding whether the difference in bracket slot size has a significant impact on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment.

Trial Registration: Registered with ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 March 2014, registration number: NCT02080338.

Citing Articles

MH-SETUP, combining Kesling wax-setup with indirect bonding and custom-made brackets for labial/lingual techniques to eliminate the finishing phase.

Elkolaly M, Hasan H J Orthod Sci. 2023; 12:11.

PMID: 37351394 PMC: 10282520. DOI: 10.4103/jos.jos_60_22.

The effect of bracket slot size on the effectiveness of orthodontic treatment: A systematic review.

Vieira E, Watanabe B, Pontes L, Mattos J, Maia L, Normando D Angle Orthod. 2017; 88(1):100-106.

PMID: 28949767 PMC: 8315718. DOI: 10.2319/031217-185.1.

References

Moher D, Schulz K, Altman D . The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA. 2001; 285(15):1987-91. DOI: 10.1001/jama.285.15.1987. View

Sameshima G, Sinclair P . Predicting and preventing root resorption: Part II. Treatment factors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119(5):511-5. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.113410. View

Martins-Junior P, Marques L, Ramos-Jorge M . Malocclusion: social, functional and emotional influence on children. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013; 37(1):103-8. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.37.1.y75430328427210j. View

Rubin R . Re: A plea for agreement. Angle Orthod. 2001; 71(3):iv. View

Eberting J, Straja S, Tuncay O . Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res. 2001; 4(4):228-34. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40407.x. View

Detterline D, Isikbay S, Brizendine E, Kula K . Clinical outcomes of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch bracket slot using the ABO objective grading system. Angle Orthod. 2010; 80(3):528-32. PMC: 8985707. DOI: 10.2319/060309-315.1. View

Brook P, Shaw W . The development of an index of orthodontic treatment priority. Eur J Orthod. 1989; 11(3):309-20. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.ejo.a035999. View

Amditis C, SMITH L . The duration of fixed orthodontic treatment: a comparison of two groups of patients treated using Edgewise brackets with 0.018" and 0.022" slots. Aust Orthod J. 2001; 16(1):34-9. View

Epstein M, Epstein J . Benefits and rationale of differential bracket slot sizes: the use of 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slot sizes within a single bracket system. Angle Orthod. 2002; 72(1):1-2. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0001:BARODB>2.0.CO;2. View

10.

Mtaya M, Brudvik P, Astrom A . Prevalence of malocclusion and its relationship with socio-demographic factors, dental caries, and oral hygiene in 12- to 14-year-old Tanzanian schoolchildren. Eur J Orthod. 2009; 31(5):467-76. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn125. View

11.

Mavragani M, Vergari A, Selliseth N, Boe O, Wisth P . A radiographic comparison of apical root resorption after orthodontic treatment with a standard edgewise and a straight-wire edgewise technique. Eur J Orthod. 2001; 22(6):665-74. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/22.6.665. View

12.

Malmgren O, GOLDSON L, Hill C, Orwin A, Petrini L, Lundberg M . Root resorption after orthodontic treatment of traumatized teeth. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82(6):487-91. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(82)90317-7. View

13.

Kusy R . "Two" much of a good thing? Then let's pick one slot size and make it metric. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121(4):337-8. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.123041. View