Aims: To retrospectively compare the efficiency of treatment of patients treated with various fixed appliance systems by 11 private practitioners. Four used Damon self-ligating appliances, four used Victory conventionally ligated appliances and three used Tip-Edge conventionally ligated appliances.
Materials and Methods: A total of 288 patient records were collected, of which 185 were non-extraction Class I, and 103 were Class II division 1 patients treated with 4 premolar extractions. Treatment duration, number of routine appointments, number of appointments for rebonding of brackets, and number of wires used in the maxillary and mandibular arches were collected.
Results: No significant differences between the mean treatment duration (p = 0.76) was found for the Damon (18.4 ± 3.5 months), Victory (18 ± 4 months) or Tip-Edge (18.3 ± 5.4 months) appliance samples. The non-extraction Damon appliance sample required significantly more emergency appointments to rebond brackets (p <0.001), and more archwires (maxillary p <0.001) (mandibular p <0.001) than the Victory and Tip-Edge appliance samples. The extraction group had statistically significant differences (p = 0.01) present in the mean treatment duration for the Victory (22.7 ± 5.2 months) and Tip-Edge (26.3 ± 7.5 months) appliance samples.
Conclusions: For the majority of variables there were no significant differences between the Damon, Victory and Tip-Edge appliance samples. However due to an increased number of rebonding appointments the Damon appliance system may be less efficient at treating non-extraction Class I cases in this study. In the extraction group the Victory series appliance system appears to be more efficient than Tip-Edge appliance system, due to a shorter mean treatment duration.