Banner Portal
Evaluation of different types of self-ligating brackets guided by electromagnetic field simulator on rotational control


Rotation. Electromagnetic fields. Orthodontic brackets.

How to Cite

Iafigliola SG, Neves JG, Valdrighi HC, Godoi APT de, Custódio WC, Vedovello Filho M. Evaluation of different types of self-ligating brackets guided by electromagnetic field simulator on rotational control. Braz. J. Oral Sci. [Internet]. 2018 Oct. 31 [cited 2024 Mar. 1];17:e18885. Available from:


Aim: The objective of this study was to measure and compare the in vitro performance of active and passive self-ligating brackets in orthodontic rotation by means of an electromagnetic field simulation. Methods: The study sample consisted of 32 mandibular right central incisor brackets (n=8), slot 0.022", that were divided into the following groups: 1) BioQuick® (Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany) active brackets; 2) In-Ovation®R (Dentsply-GAC, Central Islip, New York, USA) active brackets; 3) Damon-Q® (Ormco, Orange, California, USA) passive brackets, and 4) Smartclip® (3M, Monrovia, California, USA) passive brackets. The orthodontic wire used was CuNiTi round section 0.016", thermoactivated at 35o C (ORMCO-Orthodontics Glendora, California, USA). The experiment was performed in a simulator machine, composed of two fixed lateral axes and a movable central axis, which simulated the dental rotation. Qualitative analysis (n = 4) was performed using SEM. After the descriptive and exploratory analysis, the yield and grade data were submitted to one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by the Tukey test, considering the level of significance of 5%. Results: In-Ovation®R brackets showed significantly higher yield than BioQuick® and Damon-Q®. Damon-Q® brackets presented a significantly lower mean value than In-Ovation R and Smartclip®. BioQuick® did not differ significantly from Damon-Q® and Smartclip®. In-Ovation®R did not differ significantly from Smartclip®. Conclusion: In the present study, it was observed that there is a difference in rotational control in the different self-ligating brackets tested being the best rotational control was the In-Ovation R® group (active), followed in descending order by the groups Smartclip® (passive), Bioquick® (active) and Damon Q® (passive).


Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW. The influence of bracket design on moment production during axial rotation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 Sep;104(3):254-61.

Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 Feb;111(2):119-40.

Souza LF, Freitas MR. [Evaluation of rotation relapse of the second lower bicuspids in orthodontically treated patients, five years post treatment]. Dent Press J Orthod. 1999;4(1):52-62. Portuguese.

Benetti JJ, Pellegrin MCJ, Nóbrega C, Gick MR, Zucchi TU, et al. [Inflence of the model of the bracket in the orthodontic movement of rotation: comparative study]. Orthod Sci Pract. 2012;5(17):28-35. Portuguese.

Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006 May;76(3):480-5.

Baccetti T, Franchi L, Camporesi M, Defraia E, Barbato E. Forces produced by different nonconventional bracket or ligature systems during alignment of apically displaced teeth. Angle Orthod. 2009 May;79(3):533-9. doi: 10.2319/050508-249.1.

Heo W, Baek SH. Friction properties according to vertical and horizontal tooth displacement and bracket type during initial leveling and alignment. Angle Orthod. 2011 Jul;81(4):653-61. doi: 10.2319/072310-431.1.

Heiser W. Time: a new orthodontic philosophy. J Clin Orthod. 1998 Jan;32(1):44-53.

Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Oct;120(4):361-70.

Parkin N. Clinical pearl: clinical tips with System-R. J Orthod. 2005 Dec;32(4):244-6.

Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):208-15.

Alobeid A, El-Bialy T, Khawatmi S, Dirk C, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Comparison of the force levels among labial and lingual self-ligating and conventional brackets in simulated misaligned teeth. Eur J Orthod. 2017 Aug 1;39(4):419-425. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjw082.

Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 May;121(5):472-82.

Harradine NWT. The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Sem Orthod. 2008 Mar;14(1):5-18.

Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jun;137(6):726.e1-726.e18; discussion 726-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.11.009.

Birnie DJ. The Damon Passive Self-Ligating Appliance System. Sem Orthod. 2008 Mar;14(1):19-35.

Pesce RE, Uribe F, Janakiraman N, Neace WP, Peterson DR, Nanda R. Evaluation of rotational control and forces generated during first-order archwire deflections: a comparison of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):245-54. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjr119.

Papageorgiou SN, Konstantinidis I, Papadopoulou K, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Clinical effects of pre-adjusted edgewise orthodontic brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2014 Jun;36(3):350-63. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt064.

Romanyk DL, George A, Li Y, Heo G, Carey JP, Major PW. Influence of second-order bracket-archwire misalignments on loads generated during third-order archwire rotation in orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2016 May;86(3):358-64. doi: 10.2319/052815-365.1.

Harradine N. Self-ligating brackets increase treatment efficiency. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2013 Jan;143(1):10-8, 11-9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.10.011.

Sondhi A, Kalha AS. The tandem archwire concept with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod. 2014 Apr;48(4):221-30. Erratum in: J Clin Orthod. 2014 Aug;48(8):462.

Pandis N, Eliades T, Partowi S, Bourauel C. Moments generated during simulated rotational correction with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):1030-4. doi: 10.2319/110307-516.1.

Badawi HM, Toogood RW, Carey JP, Heo G, Major PW. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 May;133(5):721-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.051.

Morina E, Eliades T, Pandis N, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2008 Jun;30(3):233-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjn005.

Al-Thomali Y, Mohamed RN, Basha S. Torque expression in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets: A systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Jan 1;9(1):e123-e128. doi: 10.4317/jced.53187.

Romanyk DL, Au K, Isfeld D, Heo G, Major MP, Major PW. The effect of buccal-lingual slot dimension size on third-order torque response. Eur J Orthod. 2017 Apr 1;39(2):209-214. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjw043.

Higa RH, Henriques JFC, Janson G, Matias M, de Freitas KMS, Henriques FP, et al. Force level of small diameter nickel-titanium orthodontic wires ligated with different methods. Prog Orthod. 2017 Dec;18(1):21. doi: 10.1186/s40510-017-0175-z.

Tageldin H, de Llano-Pérula MC, Thevissen P, Celis JP, Willems G. Quantifying resistance to sliding in orthodontics: a systematic review. Br J Med Med Res. 2016;17(2):1-30.

Sifakakis I, Eliades T. Laboratory evaluation of orthodontic biomechanics–the clinical applications revisited. Sem Orthod. 2017;23(4):382-9. doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2017.07.008.

Pandis N, Eliades T, Partowi S, Bourauel C. Forces exerted by conventional and self-ligating brackets during simulated first- and second-order corrections. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 May;133(5):738-42. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.01.001.

The Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences uses the Creative Commons license (CC), thus preserving the integrity of the articles in an open access environment.


Download data is not yet available.


Metrics Loading ...