Conforto e fonação com nova geração de bráquetes ortodônticos linguais individualizados
Comfort and phonation with new generation of individualized lingual orthodontics brackets
Adriano Marotta Araújo; Fernanda de Oliveira e Silva; Weber José da Silva Ursi; Eduardo César Werneck
Resumo
Tema: recentemente o número de pacientes desejando um tratamento ortodôntico e estético ao mesmo tempo aumentou consideravelmente. A técnica lingual oferece a opção mais estética de tratamento ortodôntico, pois os bráquetes ficam invisíveis colados na superfície lingual dos dentes e os lábios não ficam protuberantes. Apesar da grande vantagem estética, essa terapia possui desvantagens como restrição no conforto oral, na fala, na higiene, irritações na língua, restrição no espaço da língua e dificuldades na alimentação. Para amenizar essas desvantagens uma nova geração de bráquetes linguais otimizados ao máximo através da individualização das bases dos bráquetes, da posição de colagem e dos fios utilizados no tratamento ortodôntico foi desenvolvida recentemente.
Objetivo: realizar uma revisão sistemática da literatura para verificar a adaptação do paciente a diferentes dispositivos ortodônticos linguais e a influência desses dispositivos no conforto e na fala, principalmente.
Conclusão: atualmente a literatura suporta que os bráquetes linguais de última geração individualizados por computador proporcionam maior conforto e facilidade na fonação quando comparados aos bráquetes tradicionais da técnica lingual. No entanto, o sucesso na terapia requer orientações detalhadas sobre o potencial de restrição do conforto oral, articulação de palavras, mastigação e higiene oral, independente do sistema de bráquetes a ser utilizado.
Palavras-chave
Abstract
Background: the number of patients desiring an orthodontic and esthetic treatment at the same time recently increased considerably. The lingual technique offers the most aesthetic orthodontic treatment option because the brackets are invisible on the lingual surface of the teeth and the lips are not protruding. Despite the aesthetic advantage, this therapy has disadvantages such as restriction in oral comfort, in speech, in oral hygiene, injuries in the tongue and difficulties for eating. To improve these disadvantages, a new generation of lingual brackets optimized to the maximum through the individualization of the bases, the position of the bracket and wires used in orthodontic treatment have been recently developed.
Purpose: to make a systematically review of literature to verify the patient's adaptation to different lingual orthodontic devices and the influence of these appliance in comfort and speech, as well.
Conclusion: the literature currently supports that the latest generation of lingual individualized brackets provides greater comfort and speech easiness when compared to the traditional lingual technique brackets. However, success in therapy requires detailed guidelines on the potential for restriction of the oral comfort, word articulation, chewing and oral hygiene, regardless of the bracket system to be used.
Keywords
Referencias
1. Caniklioglu C, Ozturk Y. Patient discomfort: a comparison between lingual and labial fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2005 Jan; 75(1):86-91.
2. Fillion D. Orthodontic linguale: reflexions cliniques. Rev D'Orthop Dentofac. 1990; 24(4):475-98.
3. Fillion D, Leclerc JF. L'orthodontie linguale: pourquoi est-elle en progres?. Orthod. 1991; 62(Pt 3):793-801.
4. Hohoff A, Stamm T, Kuhne N, Wiechmann D, Haufe S, Lippold C, et al. Effects of a mechanical interdental cleaning device on oral hygiene in patients with lingual brackets. Angle Orthod. 2003 Oct; 73(5):579-87.
5. Fujita K. New orthodontic treatment with lingual bracket mushroom arch wire appliance. Am J Orthod. 1979 Dec; 76(6):657-75.
6. Miyawaki S, Yasuhara M, Koh Y. Discomfort caused by bonded lingual orthodontic appliances in adult patients as examined by retrospective questionnaire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Jan; 115(1):83-8.
7. Fritz U, Diedrich P, Wiechmann D. Lingual technique: patients' characteristics, motivation and acceptance. Interpretation of a retrospective survey. J Orofac Orthop. 2002 May; 63(3):227-33.
8. Hohoff A, Fillion D, Stamm T, Goder G, Sauerland C, Ehmer U. Oral comfort, function and hygiene in patients with lingual brackets. A prospective longitudinal study. J Orofac Orthop. 2003 May; 64(5):359-71.
9. Fillion D. Improving patient comfort with lingual brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1997 Oct; 31(10):689-94.
10. Fujita K. Multilingual-bracket and mushroom arch wire technique: a clinical report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1982 Aug; 82(2):120-40.
11. Sinclair PM, Cannito MF, Goates LJ, Solomos LF, Alexander CM. Patient responses to lingual appliances. J Clin Orthod. 1986 June; 20(6):396-404.
12. Hohoff A, Stamm T, Goder G, Sauerland C, Ehmer U, Seifert E. Comparison of 3 bonded lingual appliances by auditive analysis and subjective assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Dec; 124(6):737-45.
13. Muir JC. Lingual orthodontic appliances: invisible braces. N Z Dent J. 1991 Apr; 87(388):57-9.
14. Artun J. A post treatment evaluation of multibonded lingual appliances in orthodontics. Eur J Orthod. 1987 Aug; 9(3):204-10.
15. Hohoff A, Seifert E, Fillion D, Stamm T, Heinecke A, Ehmer U. Speech performance in lingual orthodontic patients measured by sonagraphy and auditive analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Feb; 123(2):146-52.
16. Hohoff A, Stamm T, Ehmer U. Comparison of the effect on oral discomfort of two positioning techniques with lingual brackets. Angle Orthod. 2004 May; 74(2):226-33.
17. Stamm T, Hohoff A, Ehmer U. A subjective comparison of two lingual bracket systems. Eur J Orthod. 2005 Aug; 27(4):420-6.
18. Wiechmann D. Lingual orthodontics (part 1): laboratory procedure. J Orofac Orthop. 1999 Sep; 60(5):371-9.
19. Wiechmann D, Rummel V, Thalheim A, Simon JS, Wiechmann L. Customized brackets and archwires for lingual orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Nov; 124(5):593-9.
20. Shpack N, Geron S, Floris I, Davidovitch M, Brosh T, Vardimon AD. Bracket placement in lingual vs labial systems and direct vs indirect bonding. Angle Orthod. 2007 May; 77(3):509-17.
21. Wiechmann D. A new bracket system for lingual orthodontic treatment. Part 1: theoretical background and development. J Orofac Orthop. 2002 May; 63(3):234-45.
22. Wiechmann D, Gerss J, Stamm T, Hohoff A. Prediction of oral discomfort and dysfunction in lingual orthodontics: a preliminary report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Mar; 133(3):359-64; quiz 476.e1.
Submitted date:
22/12/2009
Accepted date:
17/06/2009
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email