Comparison of conventional and self-ligating lingual appliances

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the orthodontic treatment outcomes, including cephalometric values and digital model superimpositions, pain levels, tongue soreness scores and ABO-OGS (American Orthodontic Board-Objective Grading System) indexes, between cases treated with conventional and self-ligating lingual braces. MATERIAL AND METHOD: The sample included 30 subjects (17 females and 13 males) with Angle Class I malocclusion that applied to Ege University Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics. The subjects were randomly divided into two groups: STb conventional lingual braces (Ormco Corporation, Glendora, CA, USA) and GC Experience L (GC Orthodontics, Breckerfeld, Germany) self-ligating lingual braces. In both groups, 0.013, 0.016, 0.016x0.016 Copper Niti, 0.016x0.022 D-rect and 0.017x0.025 TMA wires were used respectively. At the beginning of the treatment (T0) and at the end of the treatment (T8) lateral cephalometric films and digital models were taken. Orthodontic treatment outcomes were evaluated by cephalometric analysis, digital model superimpositions, and ABO-OGS. On the 2nd day (T1), 1st week (T2), and after each wire change (T3, T4, T5, T6, T7), tongue soreness scores and pain level (by using Visual Analog Scale (VAS)) were determined. Lateral cephalometric measurements were performed using the Dolphin Imaging Software Version 11.0 (Dolphin Imaging, California, USA) program. Orthomodel (Version 2.0.206, Turkey) was used to superimpose digital models. Independent sample t test and Mann Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis. Repeated measured variance analysis was used to examine VAS and tongue soreness scores in the groups. RESULTS: At the end of treatment, lower incisors were proclined in both groups, but the difference between the groups was not significant (p>0.05). Also, the amount of overbite decreased significantly in both groups (p<0.01). The decrease in overjet was found statistically significant in both STb (0.77, p<0.05) and GC (1.21, p<0.05) groups. In both groups, although the intercanine and interpremolar distances were increased, the difference between the groups was not significant (p> 0.05). There was no statistically significant intergroup differences were found between the total ABO-OGS scores (p>0.05). In both STb and GC lingual braces groups, the highest scores were given in evaluating buccolingual inclinations. Overjet (1.90%) and interproximal contacts (1.90%) were the lowest percentages of scores in STb lingual bracket group and overjet (1.70%) in GC lingual bracket group had the lowest percentage of scoring. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in terms of time-related pain level averages (p = 0.524). In both groups, the level of pain began to change significantly at first month. There is a decrease in the level of pain during the T3 period. The injuries that occurred on the upper surface of the tongue increased in the first month, and from the 2nd day, they approached the initial level. CONCLUSION: Both methods showed comparable results. It is possible to increase interest in the field of lingual orthodontic treatment with patients' increasing aesthetic expectations and developments.