M A Montasser1, L Keilig, C Bourauel. 1. Orthodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Mansoura, Mansoura, Egypt; School of Dentistry, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of tooth alignment achieved by various small cross-section archwire/bracket combinations using the orthodontic measurement and simulation system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised three types of orthodontic brackets 1) conventional ligating (Victory Series and Mini-Taurus), 2) self-ligating (SmartClip a passive self-ligating bracket and Time3 an active self-ligating bracket), and 3) a conventional low-friction bracket (Synergy). All brackets had a nominal 0.022″ slot size. Brackets were combined with 1) 0.012″ stainless steel, 2) 0.012″ Orthonol, 3) 0.012″ Thermalloy, and 4) 0.0155″ coaxial archwires. Archwires were tied to the conventional brackets with stainless steel ligatures and elastomeric rings. The malocclusion simulated represented a central upper incisor displaced 2 mm gingivally (x-axis) and 2 mm labially (z-axis). RESULTS: The inciso-gingival correction achieved by the different archwire/bracket combinations ranged from 15 to 95%, while the labio-lingual correction ranged from 10 to 95%. The smallest correction was achieved by coaxial, Orthonol, and thermally archwires when ligated with the elastomeric rings to conventional brackets. Stainless steel archwires achieved from 65 to 90% of inciso-gingival correction and from 60 to 90% of labio-lingual correction. CONCLUSION: The resultant tooth alignment was the product of interaction between the archwire type, bracket type, and bracket design including ligature type. Small cross-sectional archwires might produce up to 95% correction if combined properly with the bracket system. Elastomeric rings when used with conventional brackets limit the efficacy of malalignment correction.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of tooth alignment achieved by various small cross-section archwire/bracket combinations using the orthodontic measurement and simulation system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study comprised three types of orthodontic brackets 1) conventional ligating (Victory Series and Mini-Taurus), 2) self-ligating (SmartClip a passive self-ligating bracket and Time3 an active self-ligating bracket), and 3) a conventional low-friction bracket (Synergy). All brackets had a nominal 0.022″ slot size. Brackets were combined with 1) 0.012″ stainless steel, 2) 0.012″ Orthonol, 3) 0.012″ Thermalloy, and 4) 0.0155″ coaxial archwires. Archwires were tied to the conventional brackets with stainless steel ligatures and elastomeric rings. The malocclusion simulated represented a central upper incisor displaced 2 mm gingivally (x-axis) and 2 mm labially (z-axis). RESULTS: The inciso-gingival correction achieved by the different archwire/bracket combinations ranged from 15 to 95%, while the labio-lingual correction ranged from 10 to 95%. The smallest correction was achieved by coaxial, Orthonol, and thermally archwires when ligated with the elastomeric rings to conventional brackets. Stainless steel archwires achieved from 65 to 90% of inciso-gingival correction and from 60 to 90% of labio-lingual correction. CONCLUSION: The resultant tooth alignment was the product of interaction between the archwire type, bracket type, and bracket design including ligature type. Small cross-sectional archwires might produce up to 95% correction if combined properly with the bracket system. Elastomeric rings when used with conventional brackets limit the efficacy of malalignment correction.
Authors: Dirk Wiechmann; Hans-Peter Bantleon; Birte Melsen; Björn Zachrisson; Urban Hägg; Pierre Canal; Robert Garcia; Stephane Barthélemi; Laure Frapier; Dan Grauer; Christian Sander; Peter Diedrich; Collin Jacobs; Heiner Wehrbein; Ariane Hohoff; Hans-Joachim Helms; Rainer Schwestka-Polly Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2020-04-22 Impact factor: 2.151