B Zimmer1, H Sino2,3, S Schenk-Kazan2. 1. Orthodontic practice, Teichstr. 24, 34130, Kassel, Germany. bzimmerkfo@aol.com. 2. Orthodontic practice, Teichstr. 24, 34130, Kassel, Germany. 3. Orthodontic practice, Hanauer Str. 11, 63755, Alzenau, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective was to clarify whether standardized multibracket therapies-differing only in finishing-wire dimensions (0.016 × 0.022 inch vs. 0.017 × 0.025 inch CNA [Connecticut New Archwire]) and excluding any extraction treatment or additional appliances other than intermaxillary elastics-can produce normal incisor inclinations starting from different baseline inclinations. METHODS: We analyzed pre- and posttreatment cephalograms of 156 patients (age: 15.6 ± 1.3 years) treated with Roth system (0.018 inch slot). Each archwire group (n = 89 or 67) was divided into subjects with initially retroclined, orthograde, or proclined upper and/or lower incisors (U1, L1). For the resultant 12 subgroups, descriptive statistics were compiled relative to five reference planes (NL, ML, NA, NB, BOP), followed by multiple intragroup (Kolmogoroff-Smirnoff and Wilcoxon signed-rank test) and intergroup (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test) comparisons relative to NL or ML. RESULTS: The following intra- (1, 2) and intergroup (3, 4) differences were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) in both archwire groups: (1) post- vs. pretreatment inclinations in the subgroups initially retroclined U1, retroclined L1 and orthograde U1, but without normal values being achieved (subgroups retroclined U1, L1) or preserved (subgroup orthograde U1); (2) observed vs. expected alterations for the subgroups initially orthograde and proclined U1 and L1; (3) posttreatment inclinations for the subgroups initially retroclined vs. orthograde L1 and proclined L1; (4) observed alterations for the subgroups initially retroclined vs. proclined U1 and L1, but neither retroclined nor proclined vs. orthograde. Archwire thickness influenced the outcome to only a limited extent under the special circumstances of this study. CONCLUSION: The bracket/archwire combinations evaluated did not lead to normal incisor inclinations in most cases. Posttreatment values did significantly depend on the pretreatment situation. Most frequently, alterations were protrusive in direction, which notably even included incisors that showed norm values at the outset of treatment. It can be concluded that bracket torque will influence but not dominate incisor inclinations.
PURPOSE: The objective was to clarify whether standardized multibracket therapies-differing only in finishing-wire dimensions (0.016 × 0.022 inch vs. 0.017 × 0.025 inch CNA [Connecticut New Archwire]) and excluding any extraction treatment or additional appliances other than intermaxillary elastics-can produce normal incisor inclinations starting from different baseline inclinations. METHODS: We analyzed pre- and posttreatment cephalograms of 156 patients (age: 15.6 ± 1.3 years) treated with Roth system (0.018 inch slot). Each archwire group (n = 89 or 67) was divided into subjects with initially retroclined, orthograde, or proclined upper and/or lower incisors (U1, L1). For the resultant 12 subgroups, descriptive statistics were compiled relative to five reference planes (NL, ML, NA, NB, BOP), followed by multiple intragroup (Kolmogoroff-Smirnoff and Wilcoxon signed-rank test) and intergroup (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test) comparisons relative to NL or ML. RESULTS: The following intra- (1, 2) and intergroup (3, 4) differences were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) in both archwire groups: (1) post- vs. pretreatment inclinations in the subgroups initially retroclined U1, retroclined L1 and orthograde U1, but without normal values being achieved (subgroups retroclined U1, L1) or preserved (subgroup orthograde U1); (2) observed vs. expected alterations for the subgroups initially orthograde and proclined U1 and L1; (3) posttreatment inclinations for the subgroups initially retroclined vs. orthograde L1 and proclined L1; (4) observed alterations for the subgroups initially retroclined vs. proclined U1 and L1, but neither retroclined nor proclined vs. orthograde. Archwire thickness influenced the outcome to only a limited extent under the special circumstances of this study. CONCLUSION: The bracket/archwire combinations evaluated did not lead to normal incisor inclinations in most cases. Posttreatment values did significantly depend on the pretreatment situation. Most frequently, alterations were protrusive in direction, which notably even included incisors that showed norm values at the outset of treatment. It can be concluded that bracket torque will influence but not dominate incisor inclinations.