month’s i.e. initial value t0, t1 (4 weeks), t2 (8weeks), t3 (12weeks). The
amount of monthly movement is found by calculating the differences (t0-t1,
t1-t2 and t2-t3). The total amount of movement is considered to be the
difference of t0 -t3, and mean is obtained by dividing it by 3. From the above
values tables are prepared for both canine retraction and rotation. From
the tables Mean and Standard Deviation (SD) are calculated for both self-
ligating and conventional brackets. Finally the comparison between two
brackets are analyzed by “Paired t-test “or student t- test.
Class II malocclusion with proclined maxillary anteriors or crowding.
Class I malocclusion with proclined maxillary and mandibular anteriors.
Bilateral extraction of maxillary first premolars is indicated.
18 to 25 years of mean age.
When the periodontal health of the teeth is weak.
Does the study require any investigations or interventions to be conducted on patients or other humans or animals? If so, please describe briefly.
Yes, mine is an vivo study using 15 human samples in which investigations
such as orthopanthamograph (OPG) and lateral cephalograph are needed.
Has ethical clearance been obtained from your institution in case of 7.3?
Yes, ethical clearance has been taken.
List of References:
1. Houricio.M,Eduardo.S,Luciane.H,Andre.W,Suriane.A. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets – a randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2011 ; 81 : 292 – 297.
2.C.L. Oliver,J.Daskalog’annakis,B.D.Tompsona. Arch wire is a significant parameter in frictional resistance of active and interactive , but not passive self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod 2011; 81;1036- 1044
3.L.M.Brauchli,Christiane.S,Andrea.W. Active and passive self-ligation- A Myth. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 312-318.
4.A.T.Dibiase,H.nasr,B.P.Scott & Martyn.T.C.Duration, Treatment and Outcome using Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems in extraction patients a prospective randomized clinical trial. Am J orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139; 111e-114e.
5. Tsui-Hsien Haung, Hoi-Shing luk, Ying-Chi,Chia-Tze kao. An in vitro comparison of frictional forces between arch wires and self -ligating brackets of passive and active types. Eur J Orthod 2011; July 2011 online.
6.Rohaya Hegat,Abdul wallaby,Hartin.I,Habibah yaccob .Comparison of self- ligating and conventional brackets in initial stage. Eur J orthod 2011; April 2011 online.
7 .Emily.o,H.Mc Callum, M.P.Griffin & Christopher. Efficiency of conventional vs. self- ligating brackets during initial alignment .Am J orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010 ;138 : 138e1-138e2.
8. S.Jack Burrow. Canine retraction rate with self-ligating brackets vs. conventional edgewise brackets. Angle Orthod 2010; 82; 626 -633.
10. Stephavie.S,Geoffrey.H,Tihyun-Elizabeth,Craig.L.S,G.J.Haung . Systemic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J orthod and Dentofacial orthop 2010; 137: 726e1-726e18.
11. Marshall.I, Gottsegen, New Orleans. Self -ligating brackets: looking back and going forward .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010: 138; 582.
12. Natalie reznikov, Gilad Har.z,Yossi.A&M.Redlich. Measurement of frictional forces between stainless steel wires and “reduced friction” self- ligating brackets Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010: 138; 330-8.
13. Nikolaos.P, A.Polychronopoulou &T.Eliades. Active or Passive self- ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparing efficiency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137 :12e1-12e6.
14. Firas Elayyan, Nick Silikas&David Boarnc. Mechanical properties of coated super elastic arch wires in conventional and self- ligating orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop2010: 137 213-7.
15. Brezniak.N, Protter.n,Herman.A,Turgman.R,Zoizner.R. Biomechanics of self- ligating brackets. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2010 137; 444.
16. Lorenzo, T.Baccetti, M.Camporesi, V.Giuntini. Forces released by non-conventional brackets or ligature less systems during alignment of buccally displaced teeth. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136; 316 e1-3.
17. P.Pellegrini, R.sauerwein, T.Finlayson, J.Mcleod. Plaque retention by self- ligating vs. elastomeric orthodontic brackets: quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 426 e1-e9.
18. M.Chung, R.Nikolia, Kiseom, Oonald.R.O. Third order torque and self- ligating orthodontic bracket- type effects on sliding friction .Angle Orthod 2009; 79 551-557.
19. Simona.T, Stefano, felice.F. Friction between arch wires of different sizes, cross sections and alloys and brackets ligated with low friction or conventional ligatures .Angle Orthod 2009; 79:111-116.
20. Sayeb.E, M.A.Mandich, T.H.Bialy, C.F.Mir. Frictional resistance between self- ligating brackets orthodontic and conventionally ligated brackets
Angle Orthod 2009; 79:592- 601.
21. S.Jack Burrow. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: A Critical review. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135:442-9.
22. David.L, Turpin. In vivo studies offer best method of self- ligation.
Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136:141-2.
23. Manu Krishnan, Sukamaran.K & K.M.Abraham. Comparative evaluation of frictional resistance in active and passive self -ligating brackets with various arch wires alloys .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 136: 675-86.
24. C.A.Reichender, T.Gedrange, S.Berrich, P.Proff. Conventional ligated and self- ligating brackets – A comparative study .Eur J Orthod 2008; 654 – 660.
25. Nikolaos.P, Theodore.E, Samira.P, Christoph.B. Comparation of different ligation methods Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 138-9.
26. C.A.Reichender, T.Gedrange, S.Berrich. Moments generated during simulated rotational correction with self- ligating and conventional brackets
Angle Orthod 2008; vol 78, no6.
27. Hain M, Dhopatkar.A, Rock.P. Comparison of frictional forces during initial levelling stage in various combinations of self -ligating brackets and arch wires with a custom- designed typhodont system. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial orthop 2008; 133 : 187 e15- 187e27.
28.Tac-Kyung,Ki Dal&Seung-HakForces released during sliding mechanics with passive self- ligating brackets or nonconventional elastomeric ligatures. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:87-90.
29. Lorenzo.F, Tiziano.B, Mattco.C & Ersilia.B. Forces exerted by conventional and self- ligating brackets during simulated first and second order corrections .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133:738-42.
30. Nikolaos.P, Theodore, Samira, &Christoph.B. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding : A Prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects .Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:208-15.