Initial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces

Background The initial arch wire is the first arch wire to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and is used mainly for correcting crowding and rotations of teeth. With a number of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which wire is most efficient, as well as which wires cause the least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. Objectives To identify and assess the evidence for the effects of initial arch wires for alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces in relation to alignment speed, root resorption and pain intensity. Search strategy We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (30th November 2009), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1950 to 30th November 2009) and EMBASE (1980 to 30th November 2009). Reference lists of articles were also searched. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. We contacted all authors of included studies to identify additional studies. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces were selected. Only studies involving patients with upper and/or lower full arch fixed orthodontic appliances were included. Data collection and analysis Two review authors were responsible for study selection, validity assessment and data extraction. All disagreements were resolved by discussion amongst the review team. Corresponding authors of included studies were contacted to obtain missing information. Main results Seven RCTs, with 517 participants, provided data for this review. Among them, five trials investigated the speed of initial tooth alignment comparing: 0.016 inch ion-implanted A-NiTi wire versus 0.016 inch A-NiTi versus 0.0175 multistrand stainless steel wire; 0.016x0.022 inch medium force active M-NiTi wire versus 0.016x0.022 inch graded force active M-NiTi wire versus 0.0155 inch multistrand stainless steel wire; 0.016 inch superelastic NiTi wire versus 0.016 inch NiTi wire; 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire versus 0.0155 inch multistrand stainless steel wire; 0.016 inch CuNiTi wire versus 0.016 inch NiTi wire. The other two studies investigated pain intensity experienced by patients during the initial stage of treatment comparing: 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire versus 0.014 inch NiTi wire; 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire versus 0.015 inch multistrand stainless steel wire. Data analyses were often inappropriate within the included studies. Authors' conclusions There is some evidence to suggest that there is no difference between the speed of tooth alignment or pain experienced by patients when using one initial aligning arch wire over another. However, in view of the general poor quality of the including trials, these results should be viewed with caution. Further RCTs are required. This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.</p

Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

Background: Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of teeth by correcting crowding and rotations. With a number of different types of orthodontic arch wires available for initial tooth alignment, it is important to understand which wire is most efficient, as well as which wires cause least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is an update of the review entitledInitial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces, which was 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: Cochrane Oral Health\u27s Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health\u27s Trials Register (to 5 October 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 9), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 5 October 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 5 October 2017. The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. We included only studies involving participants with upper or lower, or both, full arch fixed orthodontic appliances. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors were responsible for study selection, \u27Risk of bias\u27 assessment and data extraction. We resolved disagreements by discussion between the review authors. We contacted corresponding authors of included studies to obtain missing information. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE criteria. Main results: For this update, we found three new RCTs (228 participants), bringing the total to 12 RCTs with 799 participants. We judged three studies to be at high risk of bias, and three to be at low risk of bias; six were unclear. None of the studies reported the adverse outcome of root resorption. The review assessed six comparisons. 1. Multistrand stainless steel versus superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) arch wires. There were five studies in this group and it was appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of two of them. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and superelastic NiTi arch wires (mean difference (MD) -7.5 mm per month, 95% confidence interval (CI) -26.27 to 11.27; 1 study, 48 participants; low-quality evidence). The findings for pain at day 1 as measured on a 100 mm visual analogue scale suggested that there was no meaningful difference between the interventions (MD -2.68 mm, 95% CI -6.75 to 1.38; 2 studies, 127 participants; moderate-quality evidence). 2. Multistrand stainless steel versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from the studies to determine whether there is a difference in rate of alignment between multistrand stainless steel and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured. 3. Conventional NiTi versus superelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is any difference between conventional and superelastic NiTi arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain (low- to very low-quality evidence). 4. Conventional NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were two studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment between conventional and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Pain was not measured. 5. Single-strand superelastic NiTi versus coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wires. There was only one study (24 participants) in this group. There is moderate-quality evidence that coaxial superelastic NiTi can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks (MD -6.76 mm, 95% CI -7.98 to -5.55). Pain was not measured. 6. Superelastic NiTi versus thermoelastic NiTi arch wires. There were three studies in this group, but it was not appropriate to undertake a meta-analysis of the data. There is insufficient evidence from these studies to determine whether there is a difference in alignment or pain between superelastic and thermoelastic NiTi arch wires (low-quality evidence). Authors\u27 conclusions: Moderate-quality evidence shows that arch wires of coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) can produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks than arch wires made of single-strand superelastic NiTi. Moderate-quality evidence also suggests there may be no difference in pain at day 1 between multistrand stainless steel arch wires and superelastic NiTi arch wires. Other than these findings, there is insufficient evidence to determine whether any particular arch wire material is superior to any other in terms of alignment rate, time to alignment, pain and root resorption