Dinesh Chander Chaudhary1, Vineet Sharma2. 1. Graded Specialist (Orthodontics), Air Force Institute of Dental Sciences, Bengaluru 560007, India. 2. Commandant & Command Dental Adviser, CMDC (NC), India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Torque is an important component of preadjusted edgewise prescriptions to achieve ideal/optimum tooth position and more so in aesthetics sensitive maxillary anterior teeth. Thus, the need to audit available commercial brands of 018Roth and 022MBT was felt and in vitro analysis of eight brands namely 3M Unitek, Dentaurum, d-tech, IMD Medical, Libral Leone, Modern Orthodontics, Ormco and Ortho Organizer, was carried out. METHODS: The method involved perfect superimposition of two standardized images: one delineating facial axis of the tooth with stainless steel straight wire and other with full dimension arch wire engagement in bracket. The two images were superimposed and opacity of one of the images altered using Adobe Photoshop software to reveal the position of two wires. The angle obtained between two wires gave a direct read-out of torque expression. The comparison was statistically done with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. RESULTS: In 018Roth group, IMD Medical did not show any significant difference from the standard while comparison independent of standard showed that IMD, Modern Orthodontics and Ormco were not significantly different from each other. In 022MBT group, IMD Medical, d-tech, 3M Unitek and Modern Orthodontics did not have statistically significant difference from and independent of standard. CONCLUSION: Significant variations from the standard values of both 018 Roth and 022 MBT exist in the market products and thus selection of product must be based on proper guidance in addition to clinical acumen/experience. Also the methodology provides easy to use, inexpensive set-up in the clinical settings.
BACKGROUND: Torque is an important component of preadjusted edgewise prescriptions to achieve ideal/optimum tooth position and more so in aesthetics sensitive maxillary anterior teeth. Thus, the need to audit available commercial brands of 018Roth and 022MBT was felt and in vitro analysis of eight brands namely 3M Unitek, Dentaurum, d-tech, IMD Medical, Libral Leone, Modern Orthodontics, Ormco and Ortho Organizer, was carried out. METHODS: The method involved perfect superimposition of two standardized images: one delineating facial axis of the tooth with stainless steel straight wire and other with full dimension arch wire engagement in bracket. The two images were superimposed and opacity of one of the images altered using Adobe Photoshop software to reveal the position of two wires. The angle obtained between two wires gave a direct read-out of torque expression. The comparison was statistically done with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test. RESULTS: In 018Roth group, IMD Medical did not show any significant difference from the standard while comparison independent of standard showed that IMD, Modern Orthodontics and Ormco were not significantly different from each other. In 022MBT group, IMD Medical, d-tech, 3M Unitek and Modern Orthodontics did not have statistically significant difference from and independent of standard. CONCLUSION: Significant variations from the standard values of both 018 Roth and 022 MBT exist in the market products and thus selection of product must be based on proper guidance in addition to clinical acumen/experience. Also the methodology provides easy to use, inexpensive set-up in the clinical settings.