Skip Navigation


The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on October 13, 2006
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2006 28(6):561-566; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjl030
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/6/561    most recent
cjl030v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mandall, N.
Right arrow Articles by Ward, S
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mandall, N.
Right arrow Articles by Ward, S
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Which orthodontic archwire sequence? A randomized clinical trial

NA Mandall*, C Lowe**, HV Worthington*, J Sandler***, S Derwent*, M Abdi-Oskouei* and S Ward*

* School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Sheffield, UK
** Hightown Orthodontic Practice, Crewe, Sheffield, UK
*** Chesterfield Hospital, Sheffield, UK

Address for correspondence Dr N. A. Mandall, School of Dentistry, University of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester M15 6FH, UK. E-mail: nicola.a.mandall{at}manchester.ac.uk


  Abstract

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 x 0.025-inch NiTi, and 0.019 x 0.025-inch stainless steel (SS); B = 0.016-inch NiTi, 0.016-inch SS, 0.020-inch SS, and 0.019 x 0.025-inch SS; and C = 0.016 x 0.022-inch copper (Cu) NiTi, 0.019 x 0.025-inch CuNiTi, and 0.019 x 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 x 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 x 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.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Eur J OrthodHome page
P. Scott, M. Sherriff, A. T. DiBiase, and M. T. Cobourne
Perception of discomfort during initial orthodontic tooth alignment using a self-ligating or conventional bracket system: a randomized clinical trial
Eur J Orthod, June 1, 2008; 30(3): 227 - 232.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.