Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size   Users Online: 142
Home About us Editorial board Search Browse articles Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 4

Periodontal parameters in adult patients with clear aligners orthodontics treatment versus three other types of brackets: A cross-sectional study


Department of Orthodontics, Center of Dental Medicine, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province, PR China

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Li Hu
Department of Orthodontics, Center of Dental Medicine, Wuhan Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei Province
PR China
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jos.JOS_54_17

Rights and Permissions

OBJECTIVE: To assess the gingival parameters in the clear aligner treatment versus the three other types of brackets, i.e., conventional metal, conventional ceramic, and metal self-ligating. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty patients coming for regular appointments undergoing orthodontic treatment were included. They were further divided into four groups with 20 patients in each: Group one underwent conventional brackets (CB) treatment; Group two had conventional ceramic brackets (CCB); Group three was treated with self-ligating (SL) brackets; Group four underwent with clear aligner (CA) treatment. Inclusion criteria were any patient with a minimum age of 18 years having Class II, Class III skeletal relationship, undergoing orthodontic treatment for at least 6 months with fixed orthodontic appliances (FOA) on both arches. While smokers, pregnant, diabetics, or those taking medication affecting gingival health or having cardiovascular diseases were excluded. Also excluded were patients who used antiseptic solutions or mouthwash during the past 6 months, underwent any periodontal treatments in the past 6 months, or who had fixed bridges and crowns or extensive restorations close to the gingival margins. Seven indices, namely plaque index, gingival index, gingival bleeding index, sulcus bleeding index, papillary bleeding index, basic periodontal examination index, and bleeding on probing index, were recorded for all groups. RESULTS: Mean age for Group 1 with CB was 26.65 ± 5.15 years, whereas it was 27.65 ± 8.15 years for Group 2 with CCB, and 26.85 ± 5.19 for Group 3 with SB. Group-4 with CA treatment had a mean age of 26.85 ± 4.83 years. Multivariate analysis and a Bonferroni correction was performed (P = 0.008). CA treatment has better periodontal parameter values compared with the CB and the CCB groups, and no significance difference with the SL brackets group. CONCLUSION: CA treatment has better periodontal indices levels compared to other types of orthodontic treatments such as CB and the CCB groups; no significant difference with the SL brackets group. Importance should be given to oral hygiene instructions before, during, and after the treatment.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1562    
    Printed112    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded402    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal