PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter G Miles

Publications and source records attributed to Peter G Miles.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment.

The objective of this study was to compare the effectiveness and comfort of Damon 2 brackets and conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Sixty consecutive patients participated in a split mouth design. One side of the lower arch was bonded with the Damon 2 bracket and the other with a conventional twin bracket. The sides were alternated with each consecutive patient. The irregularity index (II) was measured for each half of the arch at baseline, at 10 weeks at the first archwire change, and at another 10 weeks at the second archwire change. Any difference in discomfort was assessed within the first few days of archwire placement and again at the first archwire change. Comfort on the lips, preferred look, and bracket failure rates were also recorded. The twin bracket was more uncomfortable with the initial archwire (P = .04). However, at 10 weeks, substantially more patients reported discomfort with the Damon 2 bracket when engaging the archwire (P = .004). At both archwire changes at 10 and 20 weeks (P = .001), the conventional bracket had achieved a lower II than the Damon 2 bracket by 0.2 mm, which is not clinically significant. Patients preferred the look of the twin bracket over the Damon 2 (P < .0005) and more Damon 2 brackets debonded during the study (P < .0005). The Damon 2 bracket was no better during initial alignment than a conventional bracket. Initially, the Damon 2 bracket was less painful, but it was substantially more painful when placing the second archwire and had a higher bracket failure rate.

Adolescent↗

A comparison of two indirect bonding adhesives.

The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the clinical failure rates of the chemically cured composite bonding resin Maximum Cure (MC) and the flowable light-cured resin Filtek Flow (FF) when used in an indirect bonding technique. A total of 112 consecutive patients satisfying the selection criteria were assigned to alternating groups in a split-mouth study design. In Group 1, the maxillary right and mandibular left quadrants were indirectly bonded using MC adhesive, whereas the contralateral quadrants were bonded using FF adhesive. In Group 2, the sides bonded were opposite to those in Group 1. One patient was lost from group 1, so the adjacent patient from group 2 was excluded. Over a six-month observation period, all loose brackets were recorded and the data compared with a Wilcoxon signed ranks test. Of the 2468 brackets placed, 36 with the MC adhesive came loose (2.9% failure rate) compared with 30 in the FF group (2.4% failure rate, P = .95). In the maxillary arch, 12 brackets from the MC quadrants came loose vs 24 in the FF (P = .02). In the mandibular arch, 24 brackets from the MC quadrants came loose during the six-month observation period compared with six from the FF quadrants (P = .03). These results suggest that both adhesives examined in this study (MC and FF) were suitable for the indirect bonding of brackets. The failure rates were low for both adhesives, so either could be recommended for clinical use, the choice being dictated more by operator preference.

Acid Etching, Dental↗

SmartClip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference?

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of SmartClip brackets and conventional twin brackets for initial alignment of the lower arch. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients participated in this prospective trial. The patients were assigned alternately to either a group treated with SmartClip MBT prescription brackets or a group treated with conventional MBT twin brackets. Lower anterior irregularity was measured at the start of treatment, 10 weeks later at the first archwire change and 20 weeks after the start of treatment at the second archwire change. RESULTS: There was no difference in irregularity at the start of treatment. At 10 weeks subjects treated with conventional brackets had a lower irregularity index than subjects treated with SmartClip brackets (Mean difference: 0.7 mm; p = 0.005). After 20 weeks there were no statistically significant differences in irregularity between the two groups (Mean difference: 0 mm; p = 0.82). CONCLUSION: The SmartClip bracket was no more effective at reducing irregularity during the initial stage of treatment than a conventional twin bracket ligated with elastomeric modules or stainless steel ligatures.

Adolescent↗