Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 205

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Treatment time, outcome, and patient satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets

Eberting, Jeffrey J., Straja, Sorin R., Tuncay, Orhan C.·2001·Clinical Orthodontics and Research

Abstract

Efficiency of treatment mechanics has been a major focus throughout the history of orthodontics. Self‐ligating brackets were developed on the premise that elimination of ligature ties creates a friction‐free environment and allows for better sliding mechanics. It is expected that the self‐ligating bracket will reduce the treatment time. This study was designed to compare the effectiveness and efficiency of Damon self‐ligating (SL) brackets to those brackets ligated with either steel ligatures or elastomeric ‘O’ rings. Not only treatment time and the number of appointments needed were addressed, but the quality of the treatment outcome was also assessed. American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) grading criteria for models and panoramic radiographs were employed. Additionally, a nine‐question survey was sent to the 215‐patients in this study (108 Damon, 107 conventionally‐ligated) to elicit their perceptions of how their orthodontic treatment progressed and finished. The results showed that patients treated with Damon SL brackets had significantly lower treatment times, required significantly fewer appointments, and had significantly higher ABO scores than those treated with conventionally‐ligated edgewise brackets. There were no significant differences in Damon or non‐Damon ABO scores with respect to gender. Damon patients over the age of 21 had significantly higher ABO scores. Conversely, the non‐Damon patients under the age of 21 had significantly higher ABO scores. For pre‐treatment Angle classification, no significant differences were noted. Patient responses showed that Damon patients perceived their treatment time as being shorter than expected. It appears that faster orthodontic treatment can be better as measured by the ABO criteria.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2001.40407.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Eberting, J. J., Straja, S. R., & Tuncay, O. C.
Venue
Clinical Orthodontics and Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-11
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
228-234
ISSN
  • 1397-5927 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-0544
OpenAlex
W2115301916
Cited by
205
References
0
FWCI
1.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.