-
The Angle Orthodontist Jan 2009To evaluate the effectiveness of adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the effectiveness of adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Electronic databases, conference proceedings and the Internet were searched. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment, and data extraction. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Comparisons were made between the main types of adhesive.
RESULTS
Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified, all of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light-cured compomer; and one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass polyphosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies. Meta-analysis was not feasible.
CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient high-quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.
Topics: Compomers; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dental Cements; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Light-Curing of Dental Adhesives; Molar; Organophosphates; Orthodontic Wires; Self-Curing of Dental Resins; Zinc Phosphate Cement
PubMed: 19123702
DOI: 10.2319/081307-377.1 -
Cureus Apr 2024Robotics has various applications in dentistry, particularly in orthodontics, although the potential use of these technologies is not yet clear. This review aims to... (Review)
Review
Robotics has various applications in dentistry, particularly in orthodontics, although the potential use of these technologies is not yet clear. This review aims to summarize the application of robotics in orthodontics and clarify its function and scope in clinical practice. Original articles addressing the application of robotics in any area of orthodontic practice were included, and review articles were excluded. PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and DOAJ were searched from June to August 2023. The risk of bias was established using the risk of bias in non-randomized studies (ROBINS) and certainty assessment tools following the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) guidelines. A narrative synthesis of the data was generated and presented according to its application in surgical and non-surgical orthodontics. The search retrieved 2,106 articles, of which 16 articles were selected for final data synthesis of research conducted between 2011 and 2023 in Asia, Europe, and North America. The application of robotics in surgical orthodontics helps guide orthognathic surgeries by reducing the margin of error, but it does not replace the work of a clinician. In non-surgical orthodontics, robotics assists in performing customized bending of orthodontic wires and simulating orthodontic movements, but its application is expensive. The articles collected for this synthesis exhibited a low risk of bias and high certainty, and the results indicated that the advantages of the application of robotics in orthodontics outweigh the disadvantages. This project was self-financed, and a previous protocol was registered at the PROSPERO site (registration number: CRD42023463531).
PubMed: 38765377
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.58555 -
Head & Face Medicine Nov 2020The Multiloop Edgewise Archwire (MEAW) appliance is an orthodontic treatment method suitable for the therapy of severe types of malocclusions such as open bites or... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The Multiloop Edgewise Archwire (MEAW) appliance is an orthodontic treatment method suitable for the therapy of severe types of malocclusions such as open bites or anterior crossbites. The cephalometric Denture Frame Analysis (DFA) provides a supportive diagnostic tool for patient-specific treatment planning concerning the rearrangement of occlusion within the "denture frame". The objective of this study is to give a comprehensive overview of the national and international scientific literature about MEAW and DFA regarding the general therapeutic effects, advantages and limitations.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
A computerized literature search was performed using four principal medical databases (PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and supplemented by manual searching of the references listed in the retrieved articles. The results were screened and assessed following the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Six hundred seventy-seven full articles were assessed for eligibility. A number of 134 articles went through qualitative analysis and 3 studies were finally involved in comparative synopsis. The findings reveal advantageous characteristics of the MEAW technique such as a high degree of three-dimensional individual tooth control and a comparatively low load deflection rate, causing mostly dentoalveolar changes without significantly influencing the skeletal structures.
CONCLUSION
Based on current literature, the MEAW technique appears to have several therapeutic benefits and serves as a sufficient alternative treatment method for dentoalveolar compensation, when measures of orthognathic surgery are rejected. Concerning the deficient data basis of available literature and the low level of scientific evidence, further studies are required in order to expand on the knowledge in this subject area. Several aspects like the effectiveness or the long-term stability have to be evaluated more extensively. Moreover, the transferability of the DFA to ethnic groups other than the Asian ethnicity should be examined further.
Topics: Cephalometry; Dentures; Humans; Malocclusion; Orthodontic Wires; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 33243257
DOI: 10.1186/s13005-020-00247-x -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2013Initial 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... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
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 the least amount of root resorption and pain during the initial aligning stage of treatment. This is an update of the review 'Initial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces' first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4.
OBJECTIVES
To assess 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 METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 2 August 2012), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 2 August 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 2 August 2012). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. 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
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. Only studies involving participants 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
Nine RCTs with 571 participants were included in this review. All trials were at high risk of bias and a number of methodological limitations were identified. All trials had at least one potentially confounding factor (such as bracket type, slot size, ligation method, extraction of teeth) which is likely to have influenced the outcome and was not controlled in the trial. None of the trials reported the important adverse outcome of root resorption.Three groups of comparisons were made.(1) Multistrand stainless steel initial arch wires compared to superelastic nickel titanium (NiTi) initial arch wires. There were four trials in this group, with different comparisons and outcomes reported at different times. No meta-analysis was possible. There is insufficient evidence from these trials to determine whether or not there is a difference in either rate of alignment or pain between stainless steel and NiTi initial arch wires.(2) Conventional (stabilised) NiTi initial arch wires compared to superelastic NiTi initial arch wires. There were two trials in this group, one reporting the outcome of alignment over 6 months and the other reporting pain over 1 week. There is insufficient evidence from these trials to determine whether or not there is any difference between conventional (stabilised) and superelastic NiTi initial arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain.(3) Single-strand superelastic NiTi initial arch wires compared to other NiTi (coaxial, copper NiTi (CuNiTi) or thermoelastic) initial arch wires. The three trials in this comparison each compared a different product against single-strand superelastic NiTi. There is very weak unreliable evidence, based on one very small study (n = 24) at high risk of bias, that coaxial superelastic NiTi may produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks, but no information on associated pain or root resorption. This result should be interpreted with caution until further research evidence is available. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference between either thermoelastic or CuNiTi and superelastic NiTi initial arch wires.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no reliable evidence from the trials included in this review that any specific initial arch wire material is better or worse than another with regard to speed of alignment or pain. There is no evidence at all about the effect of initial arch wire materials on the important adverse effect of root resorption. Further well-designed and conducted, adequately-powered, RCTs are required to determine whether the performance of initial arch wire materials as demonstrated in the laboratory, makes a clinically important difference to the alignment of teeth in the initial stage of orthodontic treatment in patients.
Topics: Dental Alloys; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Resorption; Tooth Movement Techniques; Toothache
PubMed: 23633347
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007859.pub3 -
The Angle Orthodontist May 2010To evaluate the clinical differences in relation to the use of self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the clinical differences in relation to the use of self-ligating brackets in orthodontics.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic databases were searched; no restrictions relating to publication status or language of publication were applied. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) investigating the influence of bracket type on alignment efficiency, subjective pain experience, bond failure rate, arch dimensional changes, rate of orthodontic space closure, periodontal outcomes, and root resorption were selected. Both authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment, and data extraction. Disagreements were resolved by discussion.
RESULTS
Six RCTs and 11 CCTs were identified. Meta-analysis of the influence of bracket type on subjective pain experience failed to demonstrate a significant advantage for either type of appliance. Statistical analysis of other outcomes was unfeasible because of inadequate methodological design and heterogenous designs.
CONCLUSIONS
At this stage there is insufficient high-quality evidence to support the use of self-ligating fixed orthodontic appliances over conventional appliance systems or vice versa.
Topics: Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 20050755
DOI: 10.2319/081009-454.1 -
International Orthodontics Dec 2021To test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in treatment efficiency between therapies undertaken with conventional (CBs), passive self-ligating (PSLBs) or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
AIM
To test the null hypothesis that there was no difference in treatment efficiency between therapies undertaken with conventional (CBs), passive self-ligating (PSLBs) or active self-ligating (ASLBs) brackets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An electronic search was performed in 3 data bases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) from their origin up to January 2019. Additional references were hand searched. Search was strictly restricted to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and split-mouth design studies (SMDs). RCTs and SMDs were initially processed separately and subsequently combined in a network meta-analysis. The following variables were evaluated: treatment duration, number of visits, occlusal outcomes, alignment rate, transverse arch dimensional changes, incisor position modification, rate of space closure, anchorage loss, bond failure, root resorption, perception of discomfort during the initial phase of alignment, time to ligate in or to untie an archwire, periodontal variables, quality of life.
RESULTS
On 229 papers, 30 RCTs and 9 SMDs were finally included in this study. Out of 85 comparisons, 16 only revealed statistically significant differences. It was quicker to untie and ligate an 0.014 NiTi arch from/in 6 ASLBs anterior ceramic brackets compared to 6 ceramic CBs. It was also more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025 SS wire in/from PSLB's brackets compared to CB's attachments. Compared to conventional brackets, there was less maxillary incisor proclination with PSLBs in non-extraction cases. Moreover, there was less bleeding on probing 4-5 weeks after bonding with PSLBs compared to CBs brackets. The only significant difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. The network meta-analysis revealed that IMPA was greater in extractions cases with CBs compared with both ASLBs (+2,5°) and PSLBs (+1,6°).
CONCLUSIONS
The vast majority of the studied variables did not show any significant differences between the three types of brackets. The most significant findings were that it was quicker to insert and remove archwires from ASLBs compared to CBs, and it was more painful to insert and remove an 0.019×0.025" stainless steel wire in/from PSLBs compared to CBs. The major difference between ASLBs and PSLBs was that alignment was 10 days faster with active self-ligating braces compared with passive self-ligating braces even if treatment duration between ASLBs and PSLBs was not significantly different. Most of the claims put forward by the suppliers were not substantiated by our network meta-analysis.
Topics: Humans; Mouth; Network Meta-Analysis; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel
PubMed: 34629309
DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2021.09.005 -
Microbial colonisation associated with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a systematic review.Journal of Orthodontics Jun 2022Decalcification and gingivitis caused by plaque accumulation around brackets are common iatrogenic effects of fixed appliances. The influence of conventional versus...
BACKGROUND
Decalcification and gingivitis caused by plaque accumulation around brackets are common iatrogenic effects of fixed appliances. The influence of conventional versus self-ligating bracket design on microbial colonisation is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the levels of microbial colonisation associated with conventional and self-ligating brackets.
SEARCH SOURCES
Three databases were searched for publications from 2009 to 2021.
DATA SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials comparing levels of microbial colonisation before and during treatment with conventional and self-ligating brackets were assessed independently and in duplicate.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted independently by two authors from the studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessments were made using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist.
RESULTS
A total of 11 randomised controlled trials were included in this systematic review. Six of the studies were found to be at low risk of bias and five presented with some concerns. The studies were considered moderate to high quality. Five trials reported no statistically significant difference in microbial colonisation between bracket types. The remaining studies showed mixed results, with some reporting increased colonisation of conventional brackets and others increased colonisation of self-ligating brackets. The heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Of the 11 studies included in this systematic review, five found no differences in colonisation between conventional and self-ligating brackets. The remaining studies showed mixed results. The evidence is inconclusive regarding the association between bracket design and levels of microbial colonisation.
Topics: Dental Plaque; Humans; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires
PubMed: 34839734
DOI: 10.1177/14653125211056023 -
Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi = Huaxi... Jun 2018This review aims to assess the relationship between initial archwire materials and pain at the initial stage of orthodontic treatment. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
This review aims to assess the relationship between initial archwire materials and pain at the initial stage of orthodontic treatment.
METHODS
On October 1, 2017, seven databases were searched electronically for studies oninitial archwire materials and pain at the initial stage of orthodontic treatment. Quality assessment was performed with bias risk assessment tools suggested by Cochrane's handbook. Data extraction of included studies was also carried out. Network Meta- analysis was conducted using R 3.4.2 (with JAGS 4.3.0), GeMTC 0.14.3, and STATA 11.0.
RESULTS
Five studies with 330 participants were included, comparing four different materials: multi-stranded stainless steel, conventional nickel-titanium, super-elastic nickel-titanium, and thermal heat-activated nickel-titanium. Two studies were at low risk of bias, one was at high risk of bias, and the remaining two were at unclear risk of bias. Network Meta-analysis results showed no statistical differences of pain among the four initial archwire materials at day 1 and day 7. However, the most painless material was most likely to be thermal heat-activated nickel-titanium on rank probability.
CONCLUSIONS
On statistical probability, thermal heat-activated nickel-titanium initial arch wires is most likely to cause the least pain at the initial stage of orthodontic treatment, compared with other materials.
Topics: Dental Alloys; Humans; Materials Testing; Network Meta-Analysis; Nickel; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Pain; Stainless Steel; Surface Properties; Titanium
PubMed: 29984932
DOI: 10.7518/hxkq.2018.03.013 -
Indian Journal of Dental Research :... 2021The complications of soft drink consumption during orthodontic treatment includes degradation of enamel, reduction in the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets,...
INTRODUCTION
The complications of soft drink consumption during orthodontic treatment includes degradation of enamel, reduction in the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets, and also corrosion of orthodontic wires. The main objective of this review is to discuss the adverse effects of carbonated soft drink (CSD) consumption on patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment.
METHODS
A search of studies in MEDLINE (via PubMed), the Cochrane library, Web of science, IndMED, EMBASE, Google scholar and limited grey literature on the effects of consumption of CSDs was conducted. All pertinent abstracts were reviewed for inclusion. Full articles were retrieved for abstracts or titles that met the initial inclusion criteria or lacked sufficient detail for immediate exclusion.
RESULTS
Out of the 4484 results obtained from search, 16 articles were selected based on title and 6 articles were eliminated after reading the abstracts. 10 articles were selected for systematic review which included 6 invitro studies, 1 animal study, 1 observational study and 2 invivo studies. Of these, six studies evaluated the effects of carbonated drinks on the shear bond strength of brackets on enamel of which two evaluated the microhardness of enamel, two studies evaluated the mechanical and chemical properties of wires, one evaluated tooth movement and one study focussed on white spot lesions. The results from the selected articles showed that with the consumption of carbonated drinks, there was reduced shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets, altered enamel characteristics, alteration of mechanical and physical properties of orthodontic wires and decrease in rate of orthodontic tooth movement.
CONCLUSION
Based on the available evidence, CSD consumption during orthodontic treatment definitely has an effect on orthodontic appliances, enamel and possibly on tooth movement.
Topics: Animals; Carbonated Beverages; Dental Enamel; Humans; Observational Studies as Topic; Orthodontic Appliances; Orthodontic Brackets; Tooth Movement Techniques
PubMed: 35645080
DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_647_20 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2024Initial 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... (Review)
Review
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.
Topics: Humans; Nickel; Titanium; Root Resorption; Stainless Steel; Copper; Orthodontic Brackets; Pain; Alloys
PubMed: 38319008
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007859.pub5