Gonion (63 Debate Roth Vs M.B.T Eze Dr. Edward Hartley Angle Dedicated 2 lot of time and efforts in creation of Oxthodontic appliances ultimately leading to the development of the idgewise appliance. Tooth movement for improved aesthetics has been earied on in a scientific manner since then. T's testimony to the genius of Dr: Angle that the Edgewise bracket designed by him way back in late 1920s is sill the preferred choice of treatment all over the world even today although with some modifications ‘The orginal bracket has ‘undergone innovative changes in che form of building in treatment into the standard design so as to reduce the aechwire bending required to position exch tooth optimally in all the three planes of space, Initially this was first attempted by attching the bracket to the rooth at an angle to cesul inthe desied distal root tp, Gradually the brackets were modified to incorporate specific values of torque De. Ronald H. Roth presented his teatment philosophy hased on specific set of treatment goals taking into account the functional ocelasion Of the patient, existing conditions, facial ype and reaction to treatment mechanics, Roth altered the presription of the "Andrews straight wire appliance ro what he thought would allow the teth robe placed ina slightly overcorrected position in all the three planes of space. The appliance would positon the teeth to achieve “end of appliance therapy goals” taking into account the fctor that after appliance removal, no matter how well reated the case maybe, the reth wil shift lightly from the positions they occupied atthe time of debanding, The overcortected teeth would then settle into an idealized position. Dr. Richard MeLaughin, Dr.John Bennett and Dr. Hugo Trevisi Noted that in the sliding mechanics that they employed, the torque requirements of the appliance needed modifications. ‘An additional 10° of palatal eoot torque was added to upper central inciors (to +17) and an additional 7 was added to “upper laterals (to +107} to prevent the loss of torque during the second stage of space closure. An addtional 5%oF labial 00t torque was added to the ower incurs raking the value to -6*. Torque adjustments were also iacosporated ia upper and lowee molars to comply with thei treatment mechanics employed. Because tip appears robe the strength of the preadjusted Deacket, the MBT prescription removed the additional tip incorporated by Andsews and Roth. The only modification the in-out dimension isthe addition of 0.5mm to the base of upper second premolar beacket for cases with smaller second premolars, A A H ébebate 64 to A A A 4 o oO D ‘Angie's Edgewise oo | oo 1 7 oe oro oo Non OrhedenteNormalvalues | 3.662 | aaa | sarva faves| 2eaa [sass ows. Andrews SWA 5 7 Pd ars | 3ne Roth Prasenpton 378 3) on? | ora | ofa HBT. [aso [a7 on? | ose | ofa ror A A A 4 A a B Angie's Edgewise oo | or 1 0 oe ora oe Non Orhedente Normalvalues [Osea | oana2| asr127 9 [as2s6 | e207 | 2936 Andrews SWA aa | [se | aa | 2 22 | aan Roth Prasenpton 2a 2a | en [4 3 30 Mat. oe | oe | ae | oraz | aay | ooo | orao Conclusion TiprTarque in De: gle mace modi his Rl rpphance ro come ou with the Felgewise bracket. Dr Andrews descr rardized goals of normal occas sd the Fdgewise Appliance ro come out with the ‘Seright Wire” applia De. Roa aid owe she goals of functional cectasion and lted the presenpion sucordingh Drs MuLaughin, Bennet The basic function of any Orthodontic appliance is to move teth inthe desired positions as dictated by the operator. Teeth have been moved fy apphinces for hundreds at yeaes \ Future fac, However our guest superior technologies, systems and pedlucrs is deven by bas FHectiveness andl efficiency af the eaten render patient. The tanth casio see the difference between a fkgge racket and an Falpewise bracket, but the pesto must have kal ris seguir in a pastcula lini conaition and hon the mechanics have to be employe : ive the ste. not discriminate berwven opecitors. “Tis works be samercil or oniezwise If an established peorosel i Followed, the resulr wil be the same ieespective of lsease and normality s aby mage. Phese are nyse presentations of malocclusions and leaee theze ate various requlsements of diverse cases I ne should follow a spster for most fine cases bt ih 1e know how of other 1 unigue reguiemenes clas patient and his her clinical presentation. There is ao ane way of doing things. No system is better just by vine of it being new: No system is superiors because itis ssed by prominent or proitie ppesators Nobody should be bowl by any bnacher system o-proroce vs single system is eal fl china eases shat ene encounters practi Iho one has to tie speci efforts to come out oF a eomfigt zone blr among 4 system, Newer products lave 19 be ened re accepting or rejecting thet a fr the same sy Focal related 10 produce optinnum results with all the products systems and technol han han ee tagged by any entor cr compen. This debate key ntensifiwhen mone new changes are intraloved along with Hence murketing by bi Ia deup pockets. Hinwever decisions should solely be patient centric as it is ultimately the patent ing forall af ei, We ae il the best custome fren policies ill uimately Benet us an the long nest, A A H F 3 El