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 × 0.025-inch NiTi, and 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel (SS); B = 0.016-inch NiTi, 0.016-inch SS, 0.020-inch SS, and 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS; and C = 0.016 × 0.022-inch copper (Cu) NiTi, 0.019 × 0.025-inch CuNiTi, and 0.019 × 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 × 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 × 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.
CITATION STYLE
Mandall, N. A., Lowe, C., Worthington, H. V., Sandler, J., Derwent, S., Abdi-Oskouei, M., & Ward, S. (2006). Which orthodontic archwire sequence? A randomized clinical trial. European Journal of Orthodontics, 28(6), 561–566. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl030
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.