Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

Abstract

Background: Initial arch wires are the first arch wires inserted into fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which are most efficient and which cause the least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is the third update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010. Objectives: To assess the effects of initial arch wires for the alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, in terms of the rate of tooth alignment, amount of root resorption accompanying tooth movement, and intensity of pain experienced by patients during the initial alignment stage of treatment. Search methods: We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two ongoing trials registries on 4 July 2022. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different initial arch wires used to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included people with full-arch fixed orthodontic appliances on the upper arch, lower arch, or both arches. Data collection and analysis: Two independent review authors were responsible for study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias in included studies. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. Our main outcomes were alignment rate (movement of teeth in mm), root resorption, time to alignment, and intensity of pain measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes using random-effects models. We reported mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data, risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CIs for dichotomous data, and alignment rate ratios with 95% CIs for time-to-event data. Two independent review authors assessed the certainty of evidence. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. Main results: We included 29 RCTs with 1915 participants (2581 arches) in this review. Studies were generally small (sample sizes ranged from 14 to 200 participants). Duration of follow-up varied between three days and six months. Eleven studies received funding, six received no funding, and 12 provided no information about funding sources. We judged eight studies at high risk of bias, nine at low risk, and 12 at unclear risk. We grouped the studies into six main comparisons. Multistrand stainless steel wires versus wires composed of other materials. Six studies with 409 participants (545 arches) evaluated multistrand stainless steel (StSt) wires versus wires composed of other materials. We are very uncertain about the effect of multistrand StSt wires versus other wires on alignment rate (4 studies, 281 participants, 417 arches; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between multistrand StSt wires and other wires in terms of intensity of pain (MD −2.68 mm, 95% CI −6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants, 127 arches; low-certainty evidence). Conventional nickel-titanium wires versus superelastic nickel-titanium wires. Four studies with 266 participants (274 arches) evaluated conventional nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires versus superelastic NiTi wires. There may be little to no difference between the different wire types in terms of alignment rate (124 participants, 124 arches, 2 studies; low-certainty evidence) and intensity of pain (MD −0.29 mm, 95% CI −1.10 to 0.52; 2 studies, 142 participants, 150 arches; low-certainty evidence). Conventional nickel-titanium wires versus thermoelastic copper-nickel-titanium wires. Three studies with 210 participants (210 arches) evaluated conventional Ni-Ti versus thermoelastic copper-nickel-titanium (CuNiTi) wires. We are very uncertain about the effects of the different arch wires on alignment rate (1 study, 66 participants, 66 arches; very low-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference between conventional NiTi wires and thermoelastic CuNiTi wires in terms of time to alignment (alignment rate ratio 1.30, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.50; 1 study, 60 participants, 60 arches; low-certainty evidence). Superelastic nickel-titanium wires versus thermoelastic nickel-titanium wires. Twelve studies with 703 participants (936 arches) evaluated superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi wires. There may be little to no difference between superelastic NiTi wires and thermoelastic NiTi wires in alignment rate at four weeks (MD −0.28 mm, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.06; 5 studies, 183 participants, 183 arches; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of the different wires on root resorption (2 studies, 52 participants, 312 teeth; very low-certainty evidence). Superelastic NiTi wires compared with thermoelastic NiTi wires may result in a slight increase in time to alignment (MD 0.5 months, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 1 study, 32 participants, 32 arches; low-certainty evidence) but are probably associated with a slight increase in intensity of pain (MD 6.96 mm, 95% CI 1.82 to 12.10; 3 studies, 94 participants, 138 arches, moderate-certainty evidence). Single-strand superelastic nickel-titanium wires versus coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium wires. Three studies with 104 participants (104 arches) evaluated single-strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi wires. Use of single-strand superelastic NiTi wires compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi wires probably results in a slight reduction in alignment rate at four weeks (MD −2.64 mm, 95% CI −4.61 to −0.67; 2 studies, 64 participants, 64 arches, moderate-certainty evidence). Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires. Two studies with 149 participants (232 arches) compared different types of NiTi wires. There may be little to no difference between different sizes of NiTi wires in terms of pain (low-certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions: Superelastic NiTi wires probably produce slightly more pain after one day than thermoelastic NiTi wires, and single-strand superelastic NiTi wires probably have a lower alignment rate over four weeks compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi wires. All other evidence on alignment rate, root resorption, time to alignment, and pain is of low or very low certainty in all comparisons. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material or size is superior to any other. The findings of this review are imprecise and unreliable; well-designed larger studies are needed to give better estimates of the benefits and harms of different arch wires. Orthodontists should exercise caution when interpreting the findings of this review and be prepared to adapt their treatment plans based on individual patient needs.