Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2018; 50(02): 135-139
DOI: 10.1055/a-0634-5528
Übersichtsartikel
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Das Damon-Bracket – Ein Review

The Damon Bracket – A Review of the Literature
Henning Madsen
1   Kieferorthopädische Fachpraxis,
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 July 2018 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Unter den zahlreichen selbstligierenden Brackets auf dem Markt wird besonders das Damon-Bracket mit der Behauptung vermarktet, große Vorteile gegenüber anderen Brackets zu haben. Schnellere Nivellierung, kürzere Behandlungsdauer, weniger Termine, weniger Schmerzen und kürzere Arbeitszeit am Zahnarztstuhl werden als Vorzüge angeführt. Ein Review der Literatur zeigt jedoch, dass allein die kürzere Arbeitszeit belegbar ist, während es keine Evidenz für weitere besondere Vorzüge des Damon-Brackets gibt.

Abstract

Among the many self-ligating brackets on the market especially the Damon-bracket is marketed with claims of superiority against other brackets. Faster alignment, shorter treatment duration, less appointments, less pain and shorter chair-side time are presented as advantages of the product. However, a literature review shows that only shorter chair-side time is proven, while there is no evidence for any other specific advantages of the Damon-bracket.

Schlüsselwörter

selbstligierende Brackets - Damon-Bracket - kieferorthopädische Behandlung - orthodontische Nivellierung - Behandlungsdauer - orthodontischer Schmerz - orthodontische Expansion

Key words

self-ligating brackets - Damon-bracket - orthodontic treatment - orthodontic alignment - treatment duration - orthodontic pain - orthodontic expansion
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Frictional resistance of the Damon SL bracket. J Clin Orthod 1998; 32: 485-489
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Kim TK, Kim KD, Baek SH. Comparison of frictional forces during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of self-ligating brackets and archwires with a custom-designed typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133: 187 e115-e124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 283-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20: 589-596
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 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; 120: 361-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Ormco. Damon Q. Im Internet: http://www.ormco.de/produkte/ brackets/passiv-selbstligierend/damon-system/damon-q/ Stand: 24.05.2018
    PubMed
  • 7 Ormco. Self Ligation – Damon System. Im Internet: http://www. ormco.com/products/damon-system/ Stand: 24.05.2018
    PubMed
  • 8 Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4: 228-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 2001; 4: 220-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs. conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 480-485
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 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; 132: 208-215
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Moser L, Schneider-Moser U, Fornasetti M. Das Verhalten von DAMON MX – und konventionellen Bracketswährend der initialen Behandlungsphase: eine prospektive in-vivo-Studie. Inf Orthod Kieferorthop 2011; 43: 83-88
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Katsaros C. et al. Comparative assessment of conventional and self-ligating appliances on the effect of mandibular intermolar distance in adolescent nonextraction patients: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: e99-e105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M. et al. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 470 e471-e478
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Wahab RM, Idris H, Yacob H. et al. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34: 176-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Active or passive self-ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparative efficiency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 12 e11-12 e16 discussion 12–13.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Songra G, Clover M, Atack NE. et al. Comparative assessment of alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 569-578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 DiBiase AT, Nasr IH, Scott P. et al. Duration of treatment and occlusal outcome using Damon3 self-ligated and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: e111-e116
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Kaklamanos EG, Mavreas D, Tsalikis L. et al. Treatment duration and gingival inflammation in Angle's Class I malocclusion patients treated with the conventional straight-wire method and the Damon technique: a single-centre, randomised clinical trial. J Orthod 2017; 44: 75-81
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K. et al. Transversal maxillary dento-alveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self-ligating brackets: a randomized clinical trial using CBCT-scans and digital models. Orthod Craniofac Res 2011; 14: 222-233
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Jiang RP, Fu MK. Non-extraction treatment with self-ligating and conventional brackets. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008; 43: 459-463
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Makou M. et al. Mandibular dental arch changes associated with treatment of crowding using self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 248-253
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Cattaneo PM, Treccani M, Carlsson K. et al. Transversal maxillary dento-alveolar changes in patients treated with active and passive self-ligating brackets: a randomized clinical trial using CBCT-scans and digital models. Orthodontics & craniofacial research 2011; 14: 222-233
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Berger J, Waram T. Force levels of nickel titanium initial archwires. J Clin Orthod 2007; 41: 286-292
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Burrow SJ. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs. conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 438-445
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Scott P, Sherriff M, Dibiase AT. et al. Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 227-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pringle AM, Petrie A, Cunningham SJ. et al. Prospective randomized clinical trial to compare pain levels associated with 2 orthodontic fixed bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 160-167
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Tecco S, D‘Attilio M, Tete S. et al. Prevalence and type of pain during conventional and self-ligating orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31: 380-384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kohli SS, Kohli VS. Patient pain experience after placement of initial aligning archwire using active and passive self-ligating bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Orthodontics (Chic) 2012; 13: e58-e65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Pandis N, Nasika M, Polychronopoulou A. et al. External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 134: 646-651
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Liu XQ, Sun XL, Yang Q. et al. Comparative study on the apical root resorption between self-ligating and conventional brackets in extraction patients. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2012; 21: 460-465
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Aras I, Unal I, Huniler G. et al. Root resorption due to orthodontic treatment using self-ligating and conventional brackets: A cone-beam computed tomography study. J Orofac Orthop 2018; DOI: 10.1007/s00056-018-0133-5.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Baka ZM, Basciftci FA, Arslan U. Effects of 2 bracket and ligation types on plaque retention: a quantitative microbiologic analysis with real-time polymerase chain reaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 260-267
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Akin M, Tezcan M, Ileri Z. et al. Incidence of white spot lesions among patients treated with self- and conventional ligation systems. Clin Oral Investig 2015; 19: 1501-1506
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ. Treatment efficiency of conventional vs. self-ligating brackets: effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 131: 395-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Berger J, Byloff FK. The clinical efficiency of self-ligated brackets. J Clin Orthod 2001; 35: 304-308
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Maijer R, Smith DC. Time savings with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 1990; 24: 29-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Wright N, Modarai F, Cobourne MT. et al. Do you do Damon(R)? What is the current evidence base underlying the philosophy of this appliance system?. J Orthod 2011; 38: 222-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 O'Brien K, Sandler J. In the land of no evidence, is the salesman king?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 247-249
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Peck S. So what’s new? Arch expansion, again. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 574-575
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 O’Brien K. Early Class II treatment: Part 1: The wheel keeps turning. Uncertainty and the Pyramid of Denial. In: Kevin O’Brien’s Orthodontic Blog 2015; Im Internet: http://kevinobrienorthoblog.com/early-classii- treatment-the-wheel-keeps-turning-part-1-uncertainty-and-thepyramid- of-denial/
    PubMed
  • 42 O’Brien K. Is orthodontic research poor? The Pyramid of Denial revisited.In: Kevin O’Brien’s Orthodontic Blog 2018; Im Internet: http://kevinobrienorthoblog.com/the-pyramid-of-denial-revisited/
    PubMed
  • 43 Sackett DL. The science of the art of clinical management. Volume 19, Craniofacial Growth Series. In: Vig PS, Ribbens KA. (Hrsg.) Science and clinical judgement in orthodontics. Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA: Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Michigan; 1986: 237-251
    Google Scholar