References

British Orthodontic Society Online Survey. 2016. http://www.bos.org.uk/News-and-Events/News
Breece GL, Nieberg LG. Motivations for adult orthodontic treatment. J Clin Orthod. 1986; 20:166-171
Ziuchkovski JP, Fields HW, Johnston W, Lindsey D. Assessment of perceived orthodontic appliance attractiveness. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:S68-78
Phan X, Ling PH. Clinical limitations of Invisalign. J Can Dent Assoc. 2007; 73:263-266
Djeu G, Shelton C, Maganzini A. Outcome assessment of Invisalign and traditional orthodontic treatment compared with the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128:292-298
Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B, BeGole E, Obrez A, Agran B. How well does Invisalign work? A prospective clinical study evaluating the efficacy of tooth movement with Invisalign. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135:27-35
Chatoo A. A view from behind: a history of lingual orthodontics. J Orthod. 2013; 40:S2-7
Fujita K. New orthodontic treatment with lingual bracket and mushroom archwire appliance. Am J Orthod. 1979; 76:657-675
Fujita K. Multilingual bracket and mushroom archwire technique: a clinical report. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82:120-140
Kurz C, Romano R. Lingual orthodontics: historical perspective. In: Romano R (ed). Hamilton, Ont: BC Decker; 1998
Wiechmann D. A new bracket system for lingual orthodontic treatment. Part I: Theoretical background and development. J Orofacial Orthop. 2002; 63:234-245
Wiechmann D. A new bracket system for lingual orthodontic treatment. Part II: First clinical experience and further development. J Orofacial Orthop. 2003; 64:372-388
Singh P, Cox S. Lingual orthodontics: an overview. Dent Update. 2011; 38:390-395
Fillion D. Lingual straightwire treatment with the Orapix System. J Clin Orthod. 2011; 45:488-497
Øgaard B, Rølla G, Arends J. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization. Part 1. Lesion development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94:68-73
Caniklioglu C, Oztürk Y. Patient discomfort: a comparison between lingual and labial fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75:86-91
Sinclair PM, Cannito MF, Goates LJ, Solomas LF, Alexander CM. Patient responses to lingual appliances. J Clin Orthod. 1986; 20:396-404
van der Veen MH, Attin R, Schwestka-Polly R, Wiechmann D. Caries outcomes after orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances: do lingual brackets make a difference?. Eur J Oral Sci. 2010; 118:298-303
Auluck A. Lingual orthodontic treatment: what is the current evidence base?. J Orthod. 2013; 40:dS27-33
Wu AK, McGrath CP, Wong RW, Rabie AB, Wiechmann D. A comparison of pain experienced by patients treated with labial and lingual appliances. Ann R Australas Coll Dent Surg. 2008; 19:176-178
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; 133:359-364
Hohoff A, Seifert E, Fillion D, Stamm T, Heinecke A, Ehmer U. Speech performance in lingual orthodontic patients measured by sonography and auditive analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 123:146-152
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; 124:737-745
Khattab T, Farah H, Al-Sabbagh R, Hajeer M, Haj-Hamed Y. Speech performance and oral impairments with lingual and labial orthodontic appliances in the first stage of fixed treatment – a randomised control trial. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83:516-526
Gorman JC, Hilgers JJ, Smith JR. Lingual orthodontics: a status report. J Clin Orthod. 1983; 17:26-35
Mavreas D, Athanasiou AE. Factors affecting the duration of orthodontic treatment: a systematic review. Euro J Orthod. 2008; 30:386-395
Ling PH. Lingual orthodontics: history, misconceptions and clarification. J Can Dent Assoc. 2005; 71:99-102
Knosel M, Klang E, Helms HJ, Weichman D. Lingual orthodontic treatment duration: performance of two different completely customized multi-bracket appliances (Incognito and WIN) in groups with different treatment complexities. Head Face Med. 2014; 10
Cooper-Kazaz R, Ivgi I, Canetti L The impact of personality on adult patients' adjustability to orthodontic appliances. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83:76-82
Grauer D, Proffit WR. Accuracy in tooth positioning with a fully customised lingual orthodontic appliance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140:433-443

Lingual orthodontics – clinical applications and patient information

From Volume 45, Issue 2, February 2018 | Pages 141-148

Authors

Andrew T Shelton

BDS, MFDS RCS(Edin), MOrth RCS(Eng), MDentSci, FDS RCS(Eng),

Consultant Orthodontist, Montagu Hospital, Doncaster, S64 OAZ, UK

Articles by Andrew T Shelton

Trevor Hodge

BDS, MFDS RCS(Ed), MOrth RCS(Ed), MPhil(Orth), FDS(Orth)RCS(Ed), FDS RCS(Eng), FHEA,

Consultant Orthodontist, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, Leeds LS2 9LU, UK

Articles by Trevor Hodge

Paul Scott

BChD, MFGDP(UK), MFDS RCS(Eng), MSc, MOrth RCS(Ed), FDS RCS(Eng),

Staff Grade Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Mid Yorkshire NHS Trust

Articles by Paul Scott

Abstract

The demand for adult orthodontic treatment is an ever-increasing trend that has driven the development of aesthetic orthodontic systems. Lingual orthodontic appliances provide the ultimate in aesthetics and their use has grown with the development of the appliances. The clinical application of different lingual appliances is described and evidence-based patient information is provided.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: Increasing demand for aesthetic orthodontic systems means that lingual appliances are, and are likely to become, more popular in the future. A broad knowledge of their clinical application and useful evidence-based information to give to patients is invaluable for all dental practitioners.

Article

The demand for adult orthodontic treatment is an ever-increasing trend that has driven the development of aesthetic orthodontic systems. A recent survey of British Orthodontic Society members working in high street practices found that 75%, of 430 respondents, reported an increase in adult treatment.1 Assessments of attractiveness and acceptability associated with orthodontic appliances have shown that a significant number of adults requiring treatment refuse it on the basis of the negative appearance associated with many commonly used appliances.2 A study looking at the attractiveness of different orthodontic appliances found both lingual and ‘clear tray’ (aligner) appliances to be rated as significantly more attractive than labial ceramic appliances, which were in turn rated as significantly more attractive than labial metal appliances.3 It was also no surprise to find that, in the hierarchy of attractiveness, lingual appliances were more attractive than ‘clear tray’ aligner appliances.3 The most popular clear aligner system currently on the market is Invisalign (Align Technology Inc, San Jose, USA), which has widespread use in both the specialist and non-specialist community. However, its well-documented clinical limitations,4-6 coupled with its reduced attractiveness, has led many clinicians to develop their use of lingual appliances.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available