The Damon Passive Self-

Ligating Appliance System

Presented to : dr. lizza dazo

Presented by : dr. ayyat idris
Seminar and conferences 4
introudction
■ The Damon Philosophy
■ is based on the principle of using just enough force to initiate
tooth movement—the threshold force.
■ A passive self-ligation mechanism has the lowest frictional
resistance of any ligation system. Thus the forces generated by
the arch wire are transmitted directly to the teeth and
supporting structures without absorption or transformation by
the ligature system. The forces generated by elastomeric
ligatures can have unwanted side effects on treatment progress.
 Compared with conventional edgewise appliances, it is use of passive self-ligation results
in a significant reduction in the:

■ Use of anchorage devices because the frictional resistance

generated by ligatures is not present. passive self-ligating
appliances use less anchorage than conventional appliances.
■ Use of intraoral expansion such as quad helices or W-springs
because the force of the arch wire is not transformed or
absorbed by the ligatures and the necessary expansion can be
achieved by the force of the arch wires.
■ Need for extractions to facilitate orthodontic mechanics . Tooth
alignment therefore places minimal stress on the periodontium
as it occurs and so the possibility of damage to the
periodontium is reduced.
 Passive Systems
■ In a passive system, a rigid - likelocking mechanism holds the
slots . This effectively turns the bracket into a tube.
■ No active force is exerted by the locking mechanism on the
arch wire itself.
■ The advantage of passive systems is reduced frictional
resistance of the arch wire .
■ The disadvantage of passive system lies in their different
biomechanical properties. The passive clip is thought to have
disadvantage properties leading to inferior rotational and
torque control.
a passive self-ligation system provides three key
features:

1● Very low levels of static and dynamic friction.

2● Rigid ligation due to the positive closure of the slot
by the gate or slide, and
3● Control of tooth position because there is an
edgewise slot of adequate width and depth.
Evidence for the Damon Philosophy:
Archwire Placement and Removal:

A different groups in order of size. They found that :

■ The time taken to ligate arch wires decreased with increasing arch wire
size.
■ The time taken to open the Damon self-ligating brackets and to remvet It
less time to ligate and release an arch wire using Damon passive self-
ligating brackets than with conventional brackets and elastomeric ligatures.
Elastomeric ligatures was almost independent of arch wire size.
■ It took less time to ligate and release an arch wire using Damon passive
self-ligating brackets than with conventional brackets and elastomeric
ligatures.
Effect of Passive Ligation on Friction
■ Many authors have found that static friction measured
is much less with a passive self-ligating system than
with any other type of fixed appliance.

The value for the passive

self-ligating Damon SL
bracket was zero
Length of Treatment

If alignment and space closure can be achieved more

quickly with self-ligating brackets due to reduced
friction, then treatment times might be shorter using
self-ligating brackets. Harradine in 2001 and Eberting
and coworkers, also in 2001, showed reductions in
treatment times of 4 and 7 months respectively.
Bracket Design
The bracket design of the Damon bracket has had the
following characteristics:
● A passive self-ligating design with conventional tie wings,
and
● A self-ligating gate, with a positive mechanism to keep the
gate either open or closed, that opens to allow operator to see
into slot. As the bracket has evolved, the following features
have changed:
● The bracket has become smaller, with a lower profile and
more rounded contours that is more comfortable for the
patient.
● the gate mechanism has become more reliable, and simpler
to open and close.
● The D3 MX bracket has a vertical auxiliary slot.
Summary :
Passive self-ligation the most direct transmission of force
from arch wire to tooth with very low friction, and
excellent control of tooth position.
All contemporary modalities of orthodontic treatment
can achieve tooth alignment; passive self-ligation,
however, does achieve results effectively, efficiently, and
in a manner that corresponds with patient values.
Thank you
References
■ 1. Damon DH: Treatment of the face with biocompatible orthodontics, in Graber TM,
Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL (eds): Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. St Louis,
Elsevier Mosby, 2005, pp 753-831
■ 2. Srinivas S: Comparison of canine retraction with selfligated and conventional ligated
brackets—a clinical study. Thesis in fulfillment of postgraduate degree, Tamilnadu
University, Chennai, India, 2003
■ 3. Harradine NWT: Self-ligating brackets and treatment efficiency. Clin Orthod Res 4:220-
227, 2001
■ 4. Maijer R, Smith DC: Time saving with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod 24:29-31,
1990
■ 5. Shivapuja PK, Berger J: A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation
bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 106:472-480, 1994
■ 6. Voudouris JC: Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with
conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 111:119-140, 1997
■ 7. Turnbull NR, Birnie DJ: Treatment efficiency of conventional versus self-ligating
brackets: the effects of archwire size and material. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
131:395-399, 2007
■ 8. Thomas S, Birnie DJ, Sherriff M: A comparative in vitro study of the frictional
characteristics of two types of self ligating brackets and two types of preadjusted edgewise
brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 20:589-596, 1998
References
■ 9. Pizzoni L, Raunholt G, Melsen B: Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J
Orthod 20:283- 291, 1998
■ 10. Khambay B, Millett D, Mc Hugh S: Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on
frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 26:327-332, 2004
■ 11. Thorstenson BS, Kusy RP: Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-
ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 121:472-782, 2002
■ 12. Sims APT, Waters NE, Birnie DJ: A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth
movement ex vivo through three types of preadjusted brackets when subjected to determined
tip or torque values. Br J Orthod 21:367-373, 1994
■ 13. Mah E, Bagby MD, Ngan PW, et al: Investigation of frictional resistance on orthodontic
brackets when subjected to variable moments [abstract]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
123:A1, 2003
■ 14. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L: A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional brackets
during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 76:480-485, 2006
■ 15. Venezia AJ: Pure Begg and edgewise arch treatments: comparison of results. Angle
Orthod 43:289-300, 1973
■ 16. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T: Self-ligating vs conventional edgewise
brackets in the treatment of mandibular crowding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132:208-
215, 2007
References
17. Cash AC, Good SA, MacDonald F: An evaluation of slot sizes in orthodontic
brackets—are standards as expected? Angle Orthod 74:450-453, 2004
18. Bourauel C, Morina E, Eliades T: Torque capacity of self-ligating brackets
compared with standard edgewise brackets. Abstracts of Lectures and Posters
[abstract 115]. Amsterdam, European Orthodontic Society, 2005 19. Pandis N,
Strigon S, Eliades T: Maxillary incisor torque with conventional and self-ligating
brackets: a prospective clinical trial Orthod Clin Res 9:193-198, 2006
20. Eberting JJ, Straja SR, Tuncay OC: Treatment time, outcome and patient
satisfaction comparisons of Damon and conventional brackets. Clin Orthod Res
4:228-234, 2001
21. Andrews LF. Straight-Wire: The concept and the appliance. San Diego: LA Wells
and Co, 1989
22. Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine:
Improving the 21st century healthcare system, in Crossing the Quality Chasm: A
New Health System for the 21st Century. Washington, DC, National Academy Press,
2001, pp 39-60
23. Self-Ligating Brackets in Orthodontics (Bjoern Ludwig ,Dirk Bister, Sebastian
Baumgaertel)