Damon Braketleri: Literatür Derlemesi

Ortodontik tedavilerde ark telini brakete bağlamak amacıyla sıklıkla paslanmaz çelik ligatürler veya elastomerik ligatürler kullanılmaktadır. Ancak bağlamaya ligasyona gerek duyulmayan self ligating kendinden bağlamalı braketlerin, örneğin SPEED, Twinlock ve Damon gibi, ortodonti uygulamalarına girmesi birçok avantajı beraberinde getirmiştir. Bu literatür derlemesinin amacı, Damon braket sisteminin felsefesi, özellikleri, avantajları ve dezavantajları konusunda mevcut bilgileri derlemektir

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Damon, ortodontik tedavi, ortodontik braket

Damon Brackets: A Literature Review

In orthodontic treatments, stainless steel ligature wires and elastomeric rings are often used to ligate arch wires to the brackets. However, self-ligating bracket types that are not required ligation, such as SPEED, Twinlock and Damon, have many advantages in orthodontic practice. The purpose of this literature review is to compile available information about philosophy, features, advantages and disadvantages of Damon bracket systems

Keywords:

Damon, orthodontic treatment, orthodontic brackets,

PDF

___

1. Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantage. Int J Orthod Dent Child. 1935;21:837-40.
2. Harradine N. The History and Development of SelfLigating Brackets. Semin Orthod. 2008;14(1):5-18.
3. Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(2):216-22.
4. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod. 2003;30(3):262-73.
5. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(3):283-91.
6. Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J Orthod. 1993;15(5):377-85.
7. Berger JL. The influence of the SPEED bracket's self-ligating design on force levels in tooth movement: a comparative in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;97(3):219-28.
8. Sims AP, Waters NE, Birnie DJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement ex vivo through three types of pre-adjusted brackets when subjected to determined tip or torque values. Br J Orthod. 1994;21(4):367-73.
9. Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of preadjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20(5):589-96.
10. Tecco S, Iorio DD, Cordasco G, Verrocchi I, Festa F. An in vitro investigation of the influence of selfligating brackets, low friction ligatures, and archwire on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:390–7.
11. Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. A comparison of different ligation methods on friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(5):666-70.
12. Pellegrini P, Sauerwein R, Finlayson T, McLeod J, Covell DA, Jr., Maier T, et al. Plaque retention by self-ligating vs elastomeric orthodontic brackets: quantitative comparison of oral bacteria and detection with adenosine triphosphate-driven bioluminescence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135(4):426 e1-9; discussion -7.
13. Pandis N, Nasika M, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. External apical root resorption in patients treated with conventional and self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(5):646-51.
14. Damon D. Damon System. The Workbook. 2003.
15. Proffit WR, Fields HW. The biologic basis of orthodontic therapy. Contemporary Orthodontics; CV Mosby, St Lois. 1993:266-88.
16. Johnson JE. Adaptability of the twin-wire appliance to modern day orthodontics. J Clin Orthod : JCO. 1976;10(7):546-55.
17. Birnie D. The Damon Passive Self-Ligating Appliance System. Semin Orthod. 2008;14(1):19- 35.
18. Aras A. Fonksiyonel Çene Ortopedisi, Ders Notları. 1998:1-28.
19. Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111(2):119-40
20. Srivinas B, Niveditha S, Jeetender S. Self-ligating brackets-a review. Annals and Essences of Dentistry. 2012;4(4):65-71.
21. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):220-7.
22. Harradine NW, Birnie D. Self ligating brackets: Theory and Practice, Excellence in orthodontics, Chapter 11. 2006:197-222.
23. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC. Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res. 2001;4(4):228-34.
24. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120(4):361-70.
25. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Selfligating vs conventional brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding: a prospective clinical trial of treatment duration and dental effects. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;132(2):208-15.
26. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(3):480-5.
27. Scott P, DiBiase AT, Sherriff M, Cobourne MT. Alignment efficiency of Damon3 self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(4):470 e1-8.
28. Mikulencak D. A comparison of maxillary arch width and molar tipping changes between rapid palatal expansion and fixed appliances vs. the Damon bracket system, Master's Thesis. St.Louis: Saint Louis University. 2006.
29. Jackson AM. The effects of crowding on buccal tipping comparing the damon bracket system and a straight-wire orthodontic appliance. Thesis (MS), Saint Louis University, 2008.