↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

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

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Initial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with fixed orthodontic braces
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2010
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007859.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wang, Yan, Jian, Fan, Lai, Wenli, Zhao, Zhihe, Yang, Zhi, Liao, Zhengyu, Shi, Zongdao, Wu, Taixiang, Millett, Declan T, McIntyre, Grant T, Hickman, Joy

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 11%
Student > Postgraduate 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 5 11%
Unknown 18 41%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 43%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 19 43%