Top

Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie

Published in:

01-07-2018 | Original Article

Coordinating bracket torque and incisor inclination

Part 2: Reproducibility and statistical measures of the torque coordination angle (TCA)

Authors: H. Sino, B. Zimmer, I. Schelper, S. Schenk-Kazan, F. Streibelt

Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie | Issue 4/2018

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the reproducibility and statistical measures of the torque coordination angle (TCA).

Methods

A total of 107 final cephalograms and corresponding casts were included, all reflecting treatment outcomes that met high qualitative standards, one of them being a Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) score of ≤3. Based on these records, the TCA was measured as a parameter to identify differences related to tooth morphology and bracket position between the torque-relevant reference plane at the bracket base and the long axis of a tooth. All measurements were performed on upper and lower central incisors (U1 and L1).

Results

Several reproducibility assessments for the TCA measurements yielded good results, including objectivity at 1.26 ± 0.81° (U1) or 1.41 ± 1.18° (L1), examiner reliability at 1.30 ± 0.97° (U1) or 1.25 ± 0.82° (L1), and method reliability at 1.80 ± 1.13° (U1) or 1.53 ± 1.07° (L1). The statistical measures revealed a high degree of interindividual variability. With bracket placement 4.5 mm (U1) or 4.0 mm (L1) above the incisal edge, the differences between the maximum and minimum TCA values were similarly large in both jaws (21.0° for U1 or 20.0° for L1), given mean TCA values of 24.6 ± 3.6° (U1) or 22.9 ± 4.3° (L1). Moving the bracket placement from 3.5 to 5.5 mm (U1) or from 3.0 to 5.0 mm (L1) changed the mean TCA values by 4.5° (U1) or 3.2° (L1).

Conclusions

The TCA is a suitable cephalometric parameter to identify differences related to tooth morphology and bracket placement. Given its high interindividual variability, the fixed torque value of a specific bracket system should not be expected to produce the same incisor inclinations across patients.

Albarakati SF, Kula KS, Ghoneima AA (2012) The reliability and reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of conventional and digital methods. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 41:11–17CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Andrews LF (1976) In: Andrews LF (ed) Die Straight-Wire-Apparatur. “A”-Company, München, p 4, 23, 25, 26, 67 (Deutsche Übersetzung der Originalarbeit “The Straight-Wire-Appliance” 1975,)

Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film landmarks. 1. Landmark identification. Am J Orthod 60:111–127CrossRefPubMed

Baumrind S, Frantz RC (1971) The reliability of head film measurements. 2. Conventional angular and linear measures. Am J Orthod 60:505–517CrossRefPubMed

Bryant RM, Sadowsky PL, Dent M, Hazelrig JB (1984) Variability in three morphologic features of the permanent maxillary central incisor. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 86:25–32CrossRef

Celik E, Polat-Ozsoy O, Toygar Memikoglu TU (2009) Comparison of cephalometric measurements with digital versus conventional cephalometric analysis. Eur J Orthod 31:241–246CrossRefPubMed

Chachada AD, Kamble RH (2014) Influence of morphology of maxillary central incisor on expression of torque using 2D surface scanning and confirmation with 3D photographic model: an in vitro study. World J Dent 5:21–27CrossRef

Chen YJ, Chen SK, Chang HF et al (2000) Comparison of landmark identification in traditional versus computer-aided digital cephalometry. Angle Orthod 70:387–392PubMed

Fassl H (2012) In: Fassl H (ed) Einführung in die Medizinische Statistik. Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, Hüthig GmbH, Berlin, pp 22–26

10.

Geelen W, Wenzel A, Gotfredsen E, Kruger M, Hansson LG (1998) Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional films, hardcopy and monitor-displayed images obtained by the phosphor technique. Eur J Orthod 20:331–340CrossRefPubMed

11.

Germane N, Bentley BE, Isaacson RJ (1989) Three biologic variables modifying faciolingual tooth angulation by straight-wire appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 96:312–319CrossRefPubMed

12.

Ghoneima A, Albarakati S, Baysal A, Uysal T, Kula K (2012) Measurements from conventional, digital and CT-derived cephalograms: a comparative study. Aust Orthod J 28:232–239PubMed

13.

Hagemann K, Vollmer D, Niegel T, Ehmer U, Reuter I (2000) Prospective study on the reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks on conventional and digital lateral headfilms. J Orofac Orthop 61:91–99CrossRefPubMed

14.

Hagg U, Cooke MS, Chan TC, Tng TT, Lau PY (1998) The reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks: an experimental study on skulls. Aust Orthod J 15:177–185PubMed

15.

Harries EF, Hassankiadeh S, Harries JT (1993) Maxillary incisor crown-root relationships in different angle malocclusions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 103:48–53CrossRef

16.

Haynes S, Chau MN (1993) Inter- and intra-observer identification of landmarks used in the Delaire analysis. Eur J Orthod 15:79–84CrossRefPubMed

17.

Houston WJ (1983) The analysis of errors in orthodontic measurements. Am J Orthod 83:382–390CrossRefPubMed

18.

Hu XQ, Kong WD, Cai B, Chen MY (2009) Evaluation of the effect of maxillary anterior teeth morphology on torque using cone beam dental computed tomography. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 27:297–300PubMed

19.

Israr J, Bhutta N, Chatha MR (2016) Comparison of Collum angle of maxillary central incisors in class II Div 1 & 2 malocclusions. Pak Oral Dent J 36:91–93

20.

Krey K‑F (2010) Untersuchungen zur Morphologie von dentofazialen und skelettalen Strukturen Erwachsener mit Methoden der geometrischen Morphometrie. Leipzig, Univ., Habil.-Schr.

21.

Loenen M van, Degrieck J, De Pauw G, Dermau L (2005) Anterior tooth morphology and its effect on torque. Eur J Orthod 27:258–262CrossRefPubMed

22.

McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ (2001) Bracket positioning and case set-up. In: McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ, Parkinson M (eds) Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. Mosby International, St. Louis, pp 8–12, 55–69

23.

Midtgard J, Bjork G, Linder-Aronson S (1974) Reproducibility of cephalometric landmarks and errors of measurements of cephalometric cranial distances. Angle Orthod 44:56–61PubMed

24.

Nimkarn Y, Miles PG (1995) Reliability of computer-generated cephalometrics. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 10:43–52PubMed

25.

Normenausschuss Dental (NADENT) im DIN (2010) Zahnheilkunde – Brackets und Röhrchen für die Kieferorthopädie. Beuth-Verlag, Berlin (Deutsche Fassung)

26.

Ongkosuwito EM, Katsaros C, van’t Hof MA, Bodegom JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM (2002) The reproducibility of cephalometric measurements: a comparison of analogue and digital methods. Eur J Orthod 24:655–665CrossRefPubMed

27.

Papageorgiou SN, Sifakakis I, Keilig L, Patcas R, Affolter S, Eliades T, Bourauel C (2016) Torque differences according to tooth morphology and bracket placement: a finite element study. Eur J Orthod 18:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-017-0161-5

28.

Polat-Ozsoy O, Gokcelik A, Memikoglu TU (2009) Differences in cephalometric measurements: a comparison of digital versus hand-tracing methods. Eur J Orthod 31:254–259CrossRefPubMed

29.

Sardarian A, Danaei SM, Shahidi S, Boushehri SG, Geramy A (2014) The effect of vertical bracket positioning on torque and the resultant stress in the periodontal ligament—a finite element study. Prog Orthod 15:50–59CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Shen Y‑W, Hsu J‑T, Wang Y‑H, Huang H‑L, Fuh L‑J (2012) The Collum angle of the maxillary central incisors in patients with different types of malocclusion. J Dent Sci 7:72–76CrossRef

31.

Taylor RM (1969) Variation in form of human teeth. An anthropologic and forensic study of maxillary incisors. J Dent Res 48:5–16CrossRefPubMed

32.

Woelfel JB (1990) In: Woelfel JB (ed) Dental anatomy: its relevance to dentistry, 4th edn. Verlag Lea und Febiger, Philadelphia, p 54–55

Title: Coordinating bracket torque and incisor inclination
Part 2: Reproducibility and statistical measures of the torque coordination angle (TCA)
Authors: H. Sino
B. Zimmer
I. Schelper
S. Schenk-Kazan
F. Streibelt
Publication date: 01-07-2018
Publisher: Springer Medizin
Published in: Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie / Issue 4/2018
Print ISSN: 1434-5293
Electronic ISSN: 1615-6714
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-018-0130-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Coordinating bracket torque and incisor inclination

Part 2: Reproducibility and statistical measures of the torque coordination angle (TCA)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 4/2018

Association of anterior and posterior occlusal planes with different Angle and skeletal classes in permanent dentitions

Evaluation of crown inclination and angulation after orthodontic treatment using digital models

Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders in patients with Hashimoto thyroiditis

Oculoauriculovertebral spectrum and maxillary sinus volumes

Three-dimensional skeletal, dentoalveolar and temporomandibular joint changes produced by Twin Block functional appliance

Mitteilungen DGKFO