IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of NiTi and TiNbTaZr Archwires in Initial Orthodontic Alignment
Objectives: The purpose of this study is to compare the clinical efficiency of nickel-titanium archwires and niobium titanium-tantalum-zirconium archwires in initial orthodontic alignment. In a prospective clinical trial that is randomized and double-blind, the speed of initial alignment is compared and transverse expansion is compared. The null hypothesis is that there is no clinically significant difference in performance between the two types of wires.
Methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial will test the effectiveness of .016 TiNbTaZr versus .016 NiTi. Half the patients (n=24 in each group) were treated with one type of archwire, and half with the other. Reduction in crowding and changes intercanine and intermolar widths are measured by taking digital scans during treatment. Inclusion criteria include patients age 12-20 of any gender or ethnicity. All patients are treated with nonextraction treatment using .022 MBT brackets and no additional orthodontic appliances. Patients with missing or unerupted teeth are excluded from the study. Patients had a digital scan before treatment, after the first 4-6 weeks of treatment, and then another 4-6 weeks later. Both maxillary and mandibular arches are measured. Changes to crowding are measured using Little’s Irregularity Index in the 3shape OrthoAnalyzer computer program.
Results: There was approximately 25% reduction in crowding during the first month using .016 TiNbTaZr wire, and an additional 15-20% of decrease in crowding during the next month. There seemed to be no significant difference in the amount of de-crowding between two groups. There was no significant difference in the changes of intercanine and intermolar distance between groups.
Conclusions: Gummetal wires are as effective as conventional NiTi wires during initial orthodontic alignment. Thus, we suggest that Gummetal wires possess similar ability to align teeth with conventional NiTi wires, and have advantages such as bending property and could be used in nickel allergy patients over conventional NiTi.
Methods: A prospective randomized clinical trial will test the effectiveness of .016 TiNbTaZr versus .016 NiTi. Half the patients (n=24 in each group) were treated with one type of archwire, and half with the other. Reduction in crowding and changes intercanine and intermolar widths are measured by taking digital scans during treatment. Inclusion criteria include patients age 12-20 of any gender or ethnicity. All patients are treated with nonextraction treatment using .022 MBT brackets and no additional orthodontic appliances. Patients with missing or unerupted teeth are excluded from the study. Patients had a digital scan before treatment, after the first 4-6 weeks of treatment, and then another 4-6 weeks later. Both maxillary and mandibular arches are measured. Changes to crowding are measured using Little’s Irregularity Index in the 3shape OrthoAnalyzer computer program.
Results: There was approximately 25% reduction in crowding during the first month using .016 TiNbTaZr wire, and an additional 15-20% of decrease in crowding during the next month. There seemed to be no significant difference in the amount of de-crowding between two groups. There was no significant difference in the changes of intercanine and intermolar distance between groups.
Conclusions: Gummetal wires are as effective as conventional NiTi wires during initial orthodontic alignment. Thus, we suggest that Gummetal wires possess similar ability to align teeth with conventional NiTi wires, and have advantages such as bending property and could be used in nickel allergy patients over conventional NiTi.