Which orthodontic archwire sequence? A randomized clinical trial

Eur J Orthod. 2006 Dec;28(6):561-6. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjl030. Epub 2006 Oct 13.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare three orthodontic archwire sequences. One hundred and fifty-four 10- to 17-year-old patients were treated in three centres and randomly allocated to one of three groups: A = 0.016-inch nickel titanium (NiTi), 0.018 x 0.025-inch NiTi, and 0.019 x 0.025-inch stainless steel (SS); B = 0.016-inch NiTi, 0.016-inch SS, 0.020-inch SS, and 0.019 x 0.025-inch SS; and C = 0.016 x 0.022-inch copper (Cu) NiTi, 0.019 x 0.025-inch CuNiTi, and 0.019 x 0.025-inch SS. At each archwire change and for each arch, the patients completed discomfort scores on a seven-point Likert scale at 4 hours, 24 hours, 3 days, and 1 week. Time in days and the number of visits taken to reach a 0.019 x 0.025-inch SS working archwires were calculated. A periapical radiograph of the upper left central incisor was taken at the start of the treatment and after placement of the 0.019 x 0.025-inch SS wire so root resorption could be assessed. There were no statistically significant differences between archwire sequences A, B, or C for patient discomfort (P > 0.05) or root resorption (P = 0.58). The number of visits required to reach the working archwire was greater for sequence B than for A (P = 0.012) but this could not be explained by the increased number of archwires used in sequence B.

Publication types

  • Multicenter Study
  • Randomized Controlled Trial
  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adolescent
  • Analysis of Variance
  • Child
  • Copper
  • Dental Alloys
  • Facial Pain / etiology
  • Female
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Malocclusion / therapy*
  • Nickel
  • Orthodontic Wires*
  • Root Resorption / etiology
  • Stainless Steel
  • Time Factors
  • Titanium
  • Tooth Movement Techniques / adverse effects*
  • Treatment Outcome

Substances

  • Dental Alloys
  • titanium nickelide
  • Stainless Steel
  • Copper
  • Nickel
  • Titanium