Our objective was to comparatively evaluate different bracket types (conventional, active self-ligating, and passive self-ligating) combined with broad archwires in terms of maxillary dental arch widths and molar inclinations.Methods:
Forty-six patients aged 13 to 17 years with moderate maxillary and mandibular crowding and a Class I malocclusion were included in this prospective clinical trial. The primary outcome measures were changes in maxillary arch width dimensions and molar inclinations. The secondary outcome measures were changes in maxillary and mandibular incisor inclinations. Group I included 15 patients (mean age, 14.4 ± 1.5 years) treated with 0.022-in active self-ligating brackets. Group II included 15 patients (mean age, 14.4 ± 1.6 years) treated with 0.022-in Roth prescription conventional brackets. Group III was a retrospective group of 16 patients (mean age, 14.8 ± 1.0 years) previously treated with 0.022-in passive self-ligating brackets. Each participant underwent alignment with the standard Damon archwire sequence. Whereas the differences among groups were evaluated by 1-way analysis of variance or Kruskal-Wallis tests, the paired-samples t test was applied for intragroup comparisons. For all possible multiple comparisons, the Bonferroni correction was applied to control for type I error.Results:
The maxillary intercanine, interpremolar, and intermolar widths were significantly greater after treatment in each bracket group. However, when the levels of expansion achieved among the 3 groups were compared, no significant difference was found. Although all posteroanterior cephalometric variables showed significant changes during treatment in all groups, these changes were not significant among the groups. A statistically significant labial proclination of the teeth was seen in each group.Conclusions:
No differences in maxillary arch dimensional changes or molar and incisor inclination changes were found in conventional and active and passive self-ligating brackets used with broad archwires.