Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

ortho - the international C.E. magazine of orthodontics

12 I I study_ bracket efficiency cases treated with traditional pre-torqued and pre- angulated brackets.Thisproducedaconfidencelevel for this sample of 95 percent +/- 8 percent. Certain types of cases were eliminated from the study. Those excluded were: cases with an unusual number of missed or broken appointments, cases with an unusual number of loose or broken brackets, casesthatrequiredtwo-phasetreatment,caseswith significant skeletal discrepancies (Class III, skeletal open bites), cases with impacted canines, cases with extremely poor cooperation and cases where some other circumstance significantly impacted Clark’s ability to complete treatment in a reasonable length of time. ThisresearchprojectwasmanagedbyJackGebbie, president, DATATEX Inc., an independent research and consulting firm specializing in market research. Thedatafileswerecarefullyreviewed,andmarketing research standards were applied to the sampling to ensure comparisons would be valid across the two alternatives being studied. DATATEXisamemberofCASRO(CouncilofAmeri- can Survey Research Organizations) and maintains researchintegrityandstandardsconsistentwiththis organization. _What was specifically studied? The study was fairly simple in its design. Patents treated with traditional edgewise brackets and Roth andTweed-typemechanicswiththegoalofattaining the Andrews 6 Keys to Occlusion14 were compared to cases treated with In-Ovation R brackets and the lightwiremechanicstypicallyusedwithself-ligating ortho1_2014 Fig. 1_ The average number of months required to treat cases utilizing In-Ovation R was 4.14 months less than comparable cases being treated using traditional edgewise brackets. (Illustrations/Provided by DENTSPLY GAC) Fig. 1

Pages Overview