Buccal Corridor Changes With Conventional and Self-ligating Brackets

Objectives: Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of conventional and self-ligating brackets on buccal corridor widths and areas.
Methods: Methods: A retrospective sample of consecutively treated patients using either conventional (CG, n=32) or self-ligating (SL, n=33) brackets was selected. All patients had permanent dentition and no congenitally missing teeth. No expansion appliances were used. Arch forms were selected as best fit for the CG group and the SL arch form in the SL group. Each patient’s frontal smiling photograph was taken in standard location with ambient lighting, using natural head position, transferred to Photoshop, measured and ratios calculated. Pretreatment sample characteristics included age, sex, total treatment time, mandibular plane angle, maxillary crowding and overbite. The linear and area measurements were taken using Photoshop ruler. Orthocad measurements were made using the minimum distance between gingival lingual surfaces of maxillary cuspids and molars. Two sample t-Test assuming unequal variance were used with P<0.05.
Results: Results: For the within-treatment SL group outcomes, the mean intercanine (IC) and intermolar (IL) pretreatment and post treatment widths were not significantly different. The mean buccal corridor area in relation to the canine (BCC) to total smile area (TSA) was not significant, however the buccal corridor area in relation to the last visible maxillary tooth (BCL) to TSA was significant. For the within-treatment CG group outcomes, there was no significant difference between any of the measurements. For the between-treatment (CG vs. SL) group outcomes, there was no significant difference between any of the linear or area measurements.
Conclusions: Conclusion: It is highly unlikely that there is any clinically significant different difference in buccal corridor widths and areas in patients treated with self-ligating or conventional brackets.