The field of orthodontics has undergone a revolution with the introduction of self-ligating braces, which replace the traditional elastic ties with a built-in clip mechanism. Among these systems, the Damon system pioneered the technology, but the newer Pitts 21 system has emerged as a significant advancement with refined biomechanics and a more aesthetic, facially driven philosophy.
This guide provides an in-depth comparison of these two leading self-ligating systems, examining technology, clinical differences, patient comfort, and treatment outcomes.
1. The Self-Ligating Difference
The Problem with Traditional Braces
Traditional braces use elastic ties to hold the archwire in place. These ties increase friction, require more force to move teeth, degrade over time, and trap plaque.
The Self-Ligating Solution
- Reduced friction and more efficient tooth movement
- Shorter and fewer appointments
- Improved hygiene due to the absence of elastic ligatures
Both Damon and Pitts 21 provide these advantages, but their design philosophy and control level differ greatly.
2. Core Technology and Biomechanics
The main difference between the Damon and Pitts 21 systems lies in bracket architecture, specifically slot size and wire control.
A. The Damon System
- Slot size: 0.022" x 0.028"
- Passive self-ligation for low-friction movement
- Excellent initial alignment
- More “play” between wire and slot, resulting in less precise finishing
B. The Pitts 21 System
- Slot size: 0.021" x 0.021" square
- Facially Driven Orthodontics (FDO) and Smile Arc Protection (SAP)
- 70% less play, improving 3D control and torque expression
- Smoother, smaller brackets with lighter forces
| Feature | Damon Braces | Pitts 21 Braces |
|---|---|---|
| Slot Dimension | 0.022″ x 0.028″ | 0.021″ x 0.021″ |
| Bracket Control | More play, less precise finishing | Up to 70% less play, higher 3D control |
| Philosophy | Passive Self-Ligation | Facially Driven Orthodontics |
| Force Level | Light forces | 30–40% lighter with smoother motion |
| Aesthetic Outcome | Wide arch, straight teeth | Smile arc enhancement, facial harmony |
3. Treatment Efficiency and Patient Experience
Treatment Time
- Damon reduces treatment time by around 40% versus traditional braces.
- Pitts 21 may be even faster due to early torque control and fewer wire changes.
Comfort
- Damon: 5–7 days of adjustment after visits
- Pitts 21: 3–5 days thanks to smoother, smaller brackets
Appointments
Pitts 21 often requires fewer total wires (as few as four), reducing visits during finishing.
4. Aesthetic and Clinical Outcomes
Smile Arc Protection
Pitts 21 uses precise bonding heights to preserve a natural, youthful smile arc.
Arch Development
Both systems promote non-extraction treatment and natural arch width development.
Finishing Phase
- Damon: more wire bends and auxiliaries needed
- Pitts 21: precise early torque reduces finishing time
5. Orthodontist Skill Matters
Both systems require training. Pitts 21 is more technique-sensitive, especially regarding bonding height and wire sequence, so results depend heavily on clinician expertise.
6. Final Verdict
| System | Best For | Main Advantage |
|---|---|---|
| Damon | Reliable, proven system for general cases | Strong history and efficiency |
| Pitts 21 | Patients seeking fastest, most aesthetic, and most controlled results | Superior torque, smile arc, and 3D control |
The best system depends on your goals, bite complexity, and your orthodontist’s experience. Pitts 21 generally offers more precise control and aesthetic outcomes, while Damon remains a strong, well-established option.
