Orthodontic Research Today is a free monthly online journal that collates and summarizes the latest research about Orthodontic, including details on braces, retainers, treatment.

Which orthodontic archwire sequence? A randomized clinical trial.

Mandall N, Lowe C, Worthington H, Sandler J, Derwent S, Abdi-Oskouei M, Ward S

School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Sheffield, UK.

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.

Published 4 December 2006 in Eur J Orthod, 28(6): 561-6.
Full-text of this article is available online (may require subscription).

© 2005-2008 Orthodontic Research Today. All Rights Reserved.