Quantification of three-dimensional orthodontic force systems of T-loop archwires

Objective: To demonstrate the three-dimensional (3D) orthodontic force systems of three commercial closing T-loop archwires using a new method and to quantify the force systems of the T-loop archwires. Materials and Methods: An orthodontic force tester (OFT) and a custom-made dentoform were developed to measure force systems. The system simulated the clinical environment for an orthodontic patient requiring space closure, which included measurement of three force components along, and three moment components about, three clinically defined axes on two target teeth. The archwires were attached to the dentoform and were activated following a standard clinical procedure. The resulting force system was measured using the OFT. Results: The force systems of the T-loops on the teeth were 3D. Activation in one direction resulted in force and moment components in other directions (side effects). The six force and moment components as well as the moment-to-force ratios in the clinically defined coordinate system were quantified. Conclusions: The commercial archwires do not provide force systems for pure translation. Quantification of the force system is critical for the selection and design of optimal orthodontic appliances

Clinical Outcomes of 0.018-Inch and 0.022-Inch Bracket Slot Using the ABO Objective Grading System

Objective: To determine if there is a significant difference in the clinical outcomes of cases treated with 0.018-inch brackets vs 0.022-inch brackets according to the American Board of Orthodontics (ABO) Objective Grading System (OGS). Materials and Methods: Treatment time and the ABO-OGS standards in alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, buccolingual inclination, overjet, occlusal relationships, occlusal contacts, interproximal contacts, and root angulations were used to compare clinical outcomes between a series of 828 consecutively completed orthodontic cases (2005–2008) treated in a university graduate orthodontic clinic with 0.018-inch- and 0.022-inch-slot brackets. Results: A two-sample t-test showed a significantly shorter treatment time and lower ABO-OGS score in four categories (alignment/rotations, marginal ridges, overjet, and root angulations), as well as lower total ABO-OGS total score, with the 0.018-inch brackets. The ANCOVA—adjusting for covariants of discrepancy index, age, gender, and treatment time—showed that the 0.018-inch brackets scored significantly lower than the 0.022-inch brackets in both the alignment/rotations category and total ABO-OGS score. Conclusions: There were statistically, but not clinically, significant differences in treatment times and in total ABO-OGS scores in favor of 0.018-inch brackets as compared with the 0.022-inch brackets in a university graduate orthodontic clinic (2005–2008)