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 Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The aim of this in vivo study was to compare the characteristicsof esthetic, self-ligating brackets (SLBs) and metallic brackets,to find bracket bond failures with SLBs and manually ligatingbrackets (MLBs), bracket breakages with SLBs and MLBs andstaining with the SLBs. Seven patients were compared in eachgroup. Standard light curing bonding methods were used in boththe groups. Chairside time saving, appliance efficiency andbracket bond failures were compared among the groupswhereas staining was observed with the SLBs. Applianceefficiency was evaluated by peer assessment rating (PAR)scores. Results showed significant chairside time being savedin SLBs, whereas the appliance efficiency was not significant.Bond failures were found only in SLBs as well as breakagesalong with staining. Henceforth, we could conclude that thoughSLBs had advantage of saving chairside time but also haddisadvantage of losing more time with bond failures.Materials and methods: Two groups of seven patients werecreated: First group (seven patients) received treatment withOPAL SLBs (Ultradent products, USA) and second group (sevenpatients) received treatment with MLBs manually ligating metalbrackets (Nu-Edge, TP Orthodontics, USA). Case selection wasdone for both the groups. Bonding procedure was done in bothgroups in which primer application was done on both toothsurface and bracket base in case of OPAL SLB’s while in caseof MLBs, primer was applied only on tooth surface.A questionnaire was evaluated for knowing patients comfort.Results: Comparison of mean values of PAR scores in boththe groups for pre-, post-treatment and in the reduction of PARscores was done.It showed that SLBs were 6.5 times quicker than the MLBsduring the archwire changes, thus saving considerable chairsidetime. Treatment outcome after 120 days, in both groups wasalmost the same. The SLBs had many bracket bond failureswhile MLBs had none. SLBs had other shortcomings, such asbracket breakage, staining, cap opening, etc.

An in vivo Study Comparing the Characteristics of Esthetic, Self-ligating and Metallic Brackets