Gingival Changes During Orthodontic Treatment with Conventional and Self-Ligating Brackets: A Prospective Non-Randomized Comparative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15517/mabvb149Keywords:
Orthodontic brackets; Gingival diseases; Gingival recession; Cohort studies; Periodontal index; Dental prophylaxis; Risk assessment.Abstract
Fixed orthodontic appliances create retentive surfaces that promote biofilm accumulation and may alter gingival health. Conventional and self-ligating brackets differ in ligature system and bracket-wire interface geometry, factors theoretically linked to differential plaque retention. Systematic reviews have not demonstrated consistent periodontal superiority of either system, and patient-level factors may be at least as relevant as bracket selection. Prospective observational cohort study with non-randomized, clinician-determined bracket allocation (2024-1 to 2025-2), Faculty of Dentistry, Universidad de Cartagena, Colombia. Forty patients (20 conventional, 20 self-ligating), aged 16-40 years, were evaluated at baseline (T1) and after 6 months of active treatment (T2). Gingival outcomes were probing depth, gingival color, bleeding on probing, dental mobility, sensitivity, and gingival recession (Cairo classification); baseline gingival phenotype, age, sex, and oral hygiene were also recorded. Between-group change scores (∆=T2-T1) were compared using bivariate, non-parametric tests (Mann-Whitney U, Kruskal-Wallis). Mean age was 25.15±8.10 years. No statistically significant between-group differences were detected during the six-month follow-up for any gingival outcome (all p>0.05). In bivariate analysis, baseline gingival phenotype was associated with bleeding on probing (p=0.004) and, exploratorily, with dental mobility (p=0.026); neither association remained significant after correcting for the full set of 28 comparisons performed (adjusted α=0.0018), and both should be regarded as hypothesis-generating. No statistically significant differences were detected between bracket types during this six-month, non-randomized comparison; estimates were imprecise, and residual confounding by indication cannot be excluded. Gingival phenotype showed a preliminary, exploratory association with periodontal response that requires confirmation in larger, adequately controlled, multivariable studies before it can inform clinical practice.
Downloads
References
Joss-Vassalli I., Grebenstein C., Topouzelis N., Sculean A., Katsaros C. Orthodontic therapy and gingival recession: a systematic review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2010; 13 (3): 127-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01491.x
Ristic M., Vlahovic Svabic M., Sasic M., Zelic O. Clinical and microbiological effects of fixed orthodontic appliances on periodontal tissues in adolescents. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2007; 10 (4): 187-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2007.00396.x
Levin L., Samorodnitzky-Naveh G.R., Machtei E.E. The association of orthodontic treatment and fixed retainers with gingival health. J Periodontol. 2008; 79 (11): 2087-92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.2008.080128
Naranjo A.A., Triviño M.L., Jaramillo A., Betancourth M., Botero J.E. Changes in the subgingival microbiota and periodontal parameters before and 3 months after bracket placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130 (3): 275.e17-22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.022
Damon D.H. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthod Res. 1998; 1 (1): 52-61. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.1998.1.1.52
Fleming P.S., DiBiase A.T. Self-ligating brackets: theory, practice, and evidence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133 (6): 681-684.
Nabhan A.F., Abbas N.H., Fleming P.S., Johal A., Sadek M.M. Self-ligating brackets versus conventional pre-adjusted edgewise brackets for treating malocclusion. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016; (10): CD012407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012407
Coronel-Zubiate F.T., Luján-Valencia S.A., Meza-Málaga J.M., Aguirre-Ipenza R., Echevarria-Goche A., Luján-Urviola E., et al. Effect of conventional and self-ligating brackets on periodontal health. Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Exp Dent. 2024; 16 (3): e358-66. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4317/jced.61378
Hempel Souper G., Sat Yaber M.I., Vargas Aguilar V., Díaz Muñoz A. Evidence-based comparison of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Odontoestomatología. 2021; 23 (38): e302.
Mester A., Onisor F., Mesaros A.S. Periodontal health in patients with self-ligating brackets: a systematic review of clinical studies. J Clin Med. 2022; 11 (9): 2570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11092570
Li Y., Gao M. Effects of self-ligating brackets on oral hygiene in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod. 2019;89(2):268-75.
Garino F., Levrini L., Mangano A. Periodontal conditions around self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2021; 43 (1): 104-12.
Scott P., DiBiase A.T., Fleming P.S. An assessment of periodontal health in patients treated with passive self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems: a randomized controlled trial. Aust Orthod J. 2008; 24 (1): 17-24.
Rana T.K., Phogat M., Sharma T., Prasad N., Singh S. Management of gingival recession associated with orthodontic treatment: a case report. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8 (7): ZD05-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/9767.4555
Fleming P.S., Andrews J. The role of orthodontics in the prevention and management of gingival recession. Br Dent J. 2024; 237 (5): 341-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-024-7781-1
Mandakovic D., Abdala N., Torres V., Saavedra D., Salinas O. Gingival recession associated with orthodontic treatment: evidence review and clinical strategies. Rev Clin Periodoncia Implantol Rehabil Oral. 2014; 7 (3): 161-5.
Cortellini P., Bissada N.F. Mucogingival conditions in the natural dentition: narrative review, case definitions, and diagnostic considerations. J Periodontol. 2018; 89 (Suppl 1): S204-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.16-0671
Wang Z., Wang Y., Yan Y., Zeng L. Effect of self-ligating brackets on periodontal tissues and inflammatory factors in patients with chronic periodontitis undergoing orthodontic treatment. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2021; 14 (2): 1391-6.
Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33 (1): 159-74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Cardoso M.A., Saraiva P.P., Maltagliati L.Á., Rhoden F.K., Costa C.C.A., Normando D., et al. Alterations in plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation promoted by treatment with self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets. Dent Press J Orthod. 2015; 20 (1): 35-41. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.2.035-041.oar
Folco A.A., Benítez-Rogé S.C., Iglesias M., Calabrese D., Pelizardi C., Rosa A., et al. Gingival response in orthodontic patients: comparative study between self-ligating and conventional brackets. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2014; 27 (3): 120-4.
Sözen Ö., Erolu E.G., Karadede Ünal B. Gingival recession due to orthodontic treatment: prevention and treatment methods. J Oral Med Dent Res. 2025; 6 (1): 1-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.52793/JOMDR.2025.6(1)-83
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Yeisson Riche Jimeno, Diego Llamas Jiménez, José Bustillo Arrieta, Jaime Plazas Román, Antonio Díaz Caballero.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ODOVTOS - Int. J. Dent. Sc. endorses CC BY-NC-SA
This license enables reusers to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon the material in any medium or format for noncommercial purposes only, and only so long as attribution is given to the creator. If you remix, adapt, or build upon the material, you must license the modified material under identical terms. CC BY-NC-SA includes the following elements:
BY: credit must be given to the creator.
NC: Only noncommercial uses of the work are permitted.
SA: Adaptations must be shared under the same terms.
