Clinical Abstracts and Studies

• Frictional Forces
• Comparison of Maxillary Arch
• Self-Ligating vs. Conventional Brackets
• Damon System vs. Conventional Appliances
• Comparison of Resistance to Sliding
• Self-Ligating Treatment
• Treatment Time
• Self-Ligating in The Year 2000
• Interactive Edgewise Mechanisms
• Force Decay and Deformation
• Ligature Wires and Elastomeric Rings

The Damon™ System vs. Conventional Appliances - A Comparative Study

Tagawa D. Clinical Impressions 2006; 15-1.

Objective

To compare Damon System treatment with conventional straightwire twin bracket treatment. Treatment times, the number of appointments, the quality of results, and patient comfort were evaluated.

Methodology

A total of 132 orthodontic patients took part in the study. Out of those patients, 66 were treated with the Damon System (the author's first Damon cases), and 66 with conventional Mini Twin ("A" Co.) braces. Patients were surveyed and evaluated at each appointment and at the completion of treatment. In evaluating treatment results, all aspects of orthodontic treatment were considered, including occlusion, alignment, facial aesthetics, dental aesthetics, TMJ considerations, and periodontal health.

Results

• Damon patients were treated in an average of 7.2 months less time than those treated with conventional braces.
• The Damon patients required an average of 47.8% fewer appointments than those treated with conventional braces.
• The amount of time required for leveling and aligning with conventional braces was 6.0 months, versus just 3.2 months for Damon, a difference of 46.7%.
• The Damon patients reported an average of 60% less discomfort than those treated with conventional braces.
• The quality of Damon's results was consistently excellent, with cases averaging 3.6 on a 4-point scale (4 being the highest).
• Patient acceptance and enthusiasm about the Damon technique were uniformly and exceptionally positive.
• The combination of extended appointment intervals and shorter treatment times resulted in a reduction in the number of patients seen per day while simultaneously improving practice productivity.

Conclusion

As compared with conventional bracket systems, the Damon System is faster, requires fewer appointments, and is far more comfortable. Faster treatment times and increased time between appointments afford a significant reduction in the number of patients seen per day while simultaneously improving practice profitability. The quality of results with the Damon System was shown to be consistently excellent.

Damon Productivity Increases

Average Arch Leveling and Total Treatment Times (in months)

Patient Discomfort

Number of Treatment Appointments