English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of the present study was to analyse the forces released by passive stainless steel self-ligating brackets (SLBs) and by a non-conventional elastomeric ligature-bracket system on conventional brackets ([slide ligatures on conventional brackets (SLCB)]) when compared with conventional elastomeric ligatures on conventional brackets (CLCB) during the alignment of apically or buccally malposed teeth in the maxillary arch. An experimental model consisting of five brackets was used to assess the forces released by the three different bracket-ligature systems with 0.012-inch super-elastic (SE) nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires in the presence of different amounts of apical or buccal canine misalignment of the canine (ranging from 1.5 to 6 mm). The forces released by each wire/bracket/ligature combination with the three different amounts of apical or buccal canine misalignment were tested 20 times. Comparisons between the different types of wire/bracket/ligature systems were carried out by means of analysis of variance on ranks with Dunnett's post hoc test (P &lt; 0.05). No difference in the amount of force released in presence of a misalignment of 1.5 mm was recorded among the three systems. At 3 mm of apical misalignment a significantly greater amount of orthodontic force was released by SLB or SLCB when compared with CLCB, while no significant differences were found among the three systems at 3 mm of buccal canine displacement. When correction of a large amount of misalignment (6 mm) was attempted, a noticeable amount of force for alignment was still generated by the passive SLB and SLCB systems while no force was released in presence of CLCB.

Orthodontic forces released by low-friction versus conventional systems during alignment of apically or buccally malposed teeth