SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.22 número35Prevalencia de infraoclusión en molares primarios de niños de 7 y 8 años, Valdivia, Chile, 2019Evaluación de la resistencia de unión a dentina humana de un sistema adhesivo universal con clorhexidina utilizado en modo de grabado total y autocondicionante índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Links relacionados

Compartir


Odontoestomatología

versión impresa ISSN 0797-0374versión On-line ISSN 1688-9339

Odontoestomatología vol.22 no.35 Montevideo  2020  Epub 01-Jun-2020

http://dx.doi.org/10.22592/ode2020n35a3 

Research

Comparison of the cross-sectional size of the 0.012, 0.014 and 0.016 NiTi archs of three brands

Xóchitl Guadalupe Esquivel-Loaiza1 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6633-5247

Jaime Fabián Gutiérrez-Rojo2 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8795-096X

Martha Patricia Guerrero-Castellón3 
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3645-9759

1 Unidad académica de Odontología, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit, México. xodent@hotmail.com

2 Unidad académica de Odontología, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit.

3 Unidad académica de Odontología, Universidad Autónoma de Nayarit.

Abstract:

Objective:

To determine if there are differences in the size of the NiTi arch in the 0.012, 0.014 and 0.016 sizes of three trademarks.

Material and methods:

180 NiTi arches of the American Orthodontics, TD Orthodontics and OrthoPremium brands were used. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA and Post Hoc were performed in the SPSS 18 program. Results: the arches of American Orthodontics presented significant statistical differences in the anterior and posterior part. In the upper arches of TD Orthodontics contraction was found in the 0.016 caliber. In the upper arches OrthoPremium presented a contraction in the anterior part and in the lower arch of 10 to 40mm. When comparing the three brands, significant statistical differences (p <0.05) were found between them with the ANOVA tests.

Conclusions:

there are differences in the sizes of the upper and lower arches of each brand and between them.

Keywords: Arch; Nickel Titanium alloy. Orthodontic

Introduction

The forces that lead to orthodontic tooth movement come from the dental archwires, which store energy that is released upon contact with the brackets. This creates biomechanical forces that produce tooth movement1-2.

The archwires must transmit light and continuous forces to avoid damaging the periodontium and inducing root resorption. They must have the following properties to work properly: stiffness, biocompatibility, fracture toughness, adequate elasticity, moldability, corrosion resistance, good aesthetics, among others3-4.

Nickel titanium (NiTi) archwires were introduced in the 1970s. This alloy has shape memory and superelasticity resulting from the martensite-to-austenite transformation. This allows it to recover its lost shape after undergoing macroscopic deformation, no corrosion is observed and there is also compatibility1,5-6.

Nowadays, the selection of the NiTi archwire and its shape depend on the patient’s arch type, which has been classified as narrow or tapered, ovoid, or square7.

Over time, professionals have tried to agree on a single dental arch shape, which has not been possible as there are several factors that influence it such as supporting bone, tooth eruption, orofacial muscles, intraoral functional forces, as well as genetics, sex and race7-9.

However, three shapes are suggested for classification purposes: narrow or tapered, square and ovoid. Such forms have been created based on four major arch aspects: anterior curvature, intercanine width, intermolar width and posterior curvature7,10.

Classifying the arch shape is crucial for the orthodontist, especially when using shape-memory archwires, as they store and carry information to adjacent teeth and tissues. If the arch is not correctly classified, this may lead to problems such as uncoordinated arches, which may affect aesthetic and functional results8,10.

Material and methods

This study was conducted within the Postgraduate Degree in Orthodontics of the Autonomous University of Nayarit, in the city of Tepic, Nayarit. It is a descriptive, observational and cross-sectional study. It was prepared by a single operator (calibration test). The sample included 180 NiTi archwires (90 upper and 90 lower archwires); 10 upper and 10 lower archwires of 0.012, 0.14 and 0.016 calibers of the following brands were used: American Orthodontics (AO), TD Orthodontics (TD) and OrthoPremium (OP). They are manufactured by Hangzou Yamei. The following shapes were used: American Orthodontics, Natural Arch Form I; Orthodontics, ovoid; and OrthoPremium, ovoid.

All measurements were made by a single operator. The following procedure was followed to measure the archwire: the wires were placed on millimeter paper with the parable vertex on the intersection of a horizontal line and a vertical line. The operator checked that the archwire was symmetrical on both sides of the vertical line passing through the midline. Once the archwire was centered, on the vertical line and from the vertex, the archwire was divided into 6 parts every 10 mm (10 mm, 20 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm and 60 mm deep), measuring the archwire transversely in those areas (Fig. 1).

Materials used: NiTi archwires, Pochteca millimeter paper, pencil, log sheets, computer. The data were recorded in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. SPSS 18 software was used to apply descriptive statistics and conduct an ANOVA test.

Fig. 1: Archwire depth where the inner part was measured transversely 

Results

Tables 1 and 2 show the average and standard deviation of the upper and lower archwires. The American Orthodontics NiTi archwires showed statistically significant differences at 10 mm, 50 mm and 60 mm in the upper archwires. Tukey’s post hoc test showed significant differences at 10 mm, 50 mm and 60 mm in the upper arches between the 0.012 archwires and the others, but when comparing the 0.014 with the 0.016 archwire, no differences were found (Table 3).

Statistically significant differences at 20 mm, 50 mm and 60 mm were found in the American Orthodontics lower archwires. Tukey’s post hoc test showed significant differences at 20 mm, 50 mm and 60 mm between the 0.012 archwires and the others, but when comparing the 0.014 to the 0.016 archwire, there were statistically significant differences only at 60 mm (Table 3).

The TD Orthodontics upper archwires showed statistically significant differences in the upper arches at 10 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm and 60 mm (Table 4). Tukey’s post hoc results showed no statistically significant differences at 10 mm and 30 mm between 0.012 and 0.014 archwires; however, there were statistically significant differences between the 0.012 and 0.016 archwires, as well as in the 0.014 and 0.016 ones. At 40 mm and 60 mm, there were only differences between the 0.012 and 0.016 archwires. Statistically significant differences were found at 50 mm between the 0.012 archwires and the 0.014 and 0.016 ones; no statistically significant differences were found between the 0.014 and 0.016 archwires (Table 4).

The TD Orthodontics lower archwires showed statistically significant differences at 10 mm and 20 mm. Tukey’s post hoc test at 10 mm and 20 mm showed that 0.012 archwires are different from the 0.014 and 0.016 ones (Table 4).

Statistically significant differences were found in the OrthoPremium upper archwires at 10 mm, 50 mm and 60 mm. Tukey’s post hoc test at 10 mm showed differences between the 0.012 archwires and the 0.014 ones, and also between the 0.014 and 0.016 archwires. Statistically significant differences were found in the lower archwires in all measurements. Tukey’s post hoc test showed statistically significant differences between 0.012 archwires and 0.014 and 0.016 archwires. However, no statistically significant differences were found between the 0.014 and 0.016 archwires (Table 5).

When comparing the average of the three archwires, statistically significant differences (p<0.01) were found in all the mean measurements of both upper and lower archwires. The result of Tukey’s post hoc test when comparing TD Orthodontics and American Orthodontics showed no statistically significant differences at 20 mm and 30 mm in the upper archwire and at 10 mm and 20 mm in the lower archwire. There were no statistically significant differences between TD Orthodontics and Orthopremium archwires; only in archwires greater than 10 mm. When comparing American Orthodontics archwires to OrthoPremium ones, no statistically significant differences were found in archwires larger than 40 mm (Table 6).

Table 1: Average and standard deviation of upper arches 

Table 2: Average and standard deviation of lower arches 

Table 3: ANOVA and Tukey’s Post hoc tests on American Orthodontics archwires 

aNo statistically significant difference, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

Table 4: ANOVA and Tukey’s Post hoc tests on TD Orthodontics archwires 

aNo statistically significant difference, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

Table 5: ANOVA and Tukey’s Post hoc tests on OrthoPremium archwires 

aNo statistically significant difference, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

Table 6: ANOVA and Tukey’s Post hoc tests on archwires belonging to the three brands 

aNo statistically significant difference, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01

Discussion

In the American Orthodontics upper archwires, the differences found in the anterior part (10 mm) may favor treatment if expansion is needed, since the difference entailed a 2-mm size increase. A contraction of 1 mm to 2 mm was found at 50 mm and 60 mm between the 0.012 archwire and the 0.014 and 0.016 ones; these differences may not affect treatment as they are in the posterior section.

In the American Orthodontics lower archwires, a slight contraction was found at 20 mm in the 0.014 and 0.016 archwires compared to the 0.012 one. In the posterior part, there was also a contraction of the archwire shape at 50 mm; at 60 mm, the 0.014 archwire was larger than the others by 10 mm.

The TD Orthodontics archwires showed a contraction of 1 mm in the 0.016 archwire at 10 mm, 30 mm, 40 mm, 50 mm and 60 mm, compared to the 0.012 and 0.014 archwires. There is a slight contraction in the lower archwire at 10 mm in the 0.014 and 0.016 archwires compared to the 0.012 one; and at 20 mm, the 0.014 and 0.016 archwires were found to be larger than the 0.012 one. The contraction found in the archwires was 1 mm in the upper and lower measurements; in the lower section, the expansion can favor orthodontic treatment.

As for the OrthoPremium brand, on the upper archwire and at 10 mm, a 1-mm contraction on average was found in the 0.016 archwire; at 50 mm and 60 mm, the 0.014 archwire was smaller than the 0.012 and 0.016 ones. The lower archwires showed contractions of 1 mm to 2 mm in the 0.014 and 0.016 archwires compared to 10 mm to 40 mm in the 0.012 archwires; at 50 mm and 60 mm, the 0.012 archwires are smaller than 0.014 and 0.016 archwires.

In the NiTi archwires, the front has a greater increase in the archwire width11. In this study, only the AO upper archwire showed expansion in the anterior part as the wire caliber increased; a slight contraction was found in the other brands.

In their 2010 study, Oda et al. found that preformed NiTi archwires can be narrow at the canine and molar levels. Therefore, they state that it would be advisable to increase the size of the archwires from 1 mm to 3 mm in the canine area and from 2 mm to 5 mm in the molar area12. In this study, most NiTi archwires presented contraction as the wire caliber increased, so we agree with Oda that the shape of the wire should be broader.

Lee et al. found that the depth in the archwire of the second molars was 37 mm in the maxilla and 33 mm in the mandible13. Ferro et al. conducted a study where the molar depth was 34 mm in the maxilla and 30 mm in the mandible14. Ahmed et al. reported a 40 mm second molar depth15. Hedayati et al. found a molar depth of 27 mm16. In this study, most cases of contraction of the archwires were found at 50 mm and 60 mm. This may have no clinical impact since in studies measuring the depth of the dental arch, the second molars are located between 37 mm and 40 mm, unless a third molar were to be treated with orthodontics.

When comparing the archwires of the three companies, we found very few coincidences, so it would not be advisable to use a combination of brands during treatment. These results match those of Braun et al., although their research was conducted on rectangular NiTi archwires11.

Conclusions

There are differences in the sizes of both the upper and lower archwires in each brand. The brand with the least differences among its archwires was American Orthodontics; the difference in the upper archwire was a 2-mm expansion at 10 mm, between the 0.012 archwire and the 0.014 and 0.016 archwires. It is not advisable to use NiTi archwires from different brands on the same patient as the size may vary by brand.

REFERENCES

1. Sandoval P, Lara A, Minte C, Gutiérrez P. Caracterización de los Alambres Termoactivados para Uso Ortodóncico. Reporte de Caso. Int J Odontostomat. 2012; 6 (1): 65-70. [ Links ]

2. Serrano G, Sáez G, Álvarez C, Kaori H. Estudio comparativo de resistencia a la fatiga de arcos de níquel-titanio de tres marcas. Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia. 2014; 2 (4): 253-256. [ Links ]

3. Cervera-Sabater A, Simón-Pardell M. Fricción en arco recto. Biomecánica básica. Rev Esp Ortod. 2003; 33: 65-72. [ Links ]

4. Claros M. Estudio comparativo in vitro de la fricción de alambres según el tipo de aleación, calibre y tipo de ligadura con y sin orthospeed en un plano inclinado. Memoria para optar al grado de doctor. Universidad Complutense de Madrid; 2013. [ Links ]

5. Gómez A, Díaz del Castillo F. Nitinol, un biomaterial con memoria de forma. Cuautitlán Izcalli 2011. Disponible en: http://olimpia.cuautitlan2.unam.mx/pagina_ingenieria/mecanica/mat/mat_mec/m6/Nitinol_un%20biomaterial.pdfLinks ]

6. Serrano G, Sáez G, Álvarez C, Kaori H. Estudio comparativo de resistencia a la fatiga de arcos de níquel-titanio de tres marcas. Rev. Mex. de Ort.. 2014; 2(4): 253-256. [ Links ]

7. Orozco L, González M, Nácar M, Santillan N, Sánchez C, Moreno W. Forma de los arcos dentales en pacientes atendidos en la clínica multidisciplinaria de Zaragoza. Rev. Esp. CS. 2011; 14(2): 82-87. [ Links ]

8. Mendoza-Sandoval P, Gutiérrez-Rojo J. Forma de arco dental en ortodoncia. Rev. Tamé. 2015; 3 (9): 327-333. [ Links ]

9. Agurto P, Sandoval P. Morfología del Arco Maxilar y Mandibular en Niños de Ascendencia Mapuche y no Mapuche. Int. J. Morphol. 2011; 29(4):1104-1108 [ Links ]

10. Gutiérrez G, Gutiérrez G. Prevalencia de forma de los arcos dentales en adultos con maloclusión y sin tratamiento ortodóncico. Rev. Odont. Mex. 2006; 10 (3): 109-114. [ Links ]

11. Braun S, Hnat W, Leschinsky R, Legan H. An evaluation of the shape of some popular nickel titanium alloy preformed arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116 (1); 1-12. [ Links ]

12. Oda S, Arai K, Nakahara R. Commercially avaible archwire forms compared with normal dental arch forms in a Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137 (4): 520-7. [ Links ]

13. Lee S, Lee S, Lim J, Park H, Wheeler T. Method to classify dental arch forms. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140 (1):87-96. [ Links ]

14. Ferro R, Pasini M, Fortini A. Arrighi A, Carli E, Giuca M. Evaluation of maxillary and mandibular arch forms in an italian adolescentes simple with normocclusion. Euro J of Paediatric Dent. 2017; 18 (3): 193-8. [ Links ]

15. Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Evaluation of conformity of preformed orthodontic archwires and dental arch form. Dental Press J Orthod. 2019; 24 (1): 44-52. [ Links ]

16. Hedayati Z, Fakhri F, Moshkel V. Comparison of commercially available arch wires with normal dental arch in a group of Iranian population. J Dent shiraz uni med Sci. 2015; 16 (2): 106-112. [ Links ]

Authorship contribution note: 1) Conception and design of study 2) Acquisition of data 3) Data analysis 4) Discussion of results 5) Drafting of the manuscript 6) Approval of the final version of the manuscript. X.G. has contributed in 2,4,5,6. J.F. has contributed in 1,3,4,5,6. M.P. has contributed in 1,5,6.

Editor’s opinion: This article has been accepted by the Odontoestomatología’s editor Dra. Vanessa Pereira-Prado

Received: September 19, 2019; Accepted: November 05, 2019

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons