4.3 Article

Alignment efficiency of superelastic coaxial nickel-titanium vs superelastic single-stranded nickel-titanium in relieving mandibular anterior crowding A randomized controlled prospective study

期刊

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
卷 82, 期 4, 页码 703-708

出版社

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/072111-460.1

关键词

Orthodontic archwires; Superelastic NiTi; Mandibular anterior de-crowding; Coaxial superelastic NiTi; Alignment archwires

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To clinically evaluate the alignment efficiency of 0.016-inch coaxial superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi) and 0.016-inch superelastic NiTi in the lower anterior region over a period of 12 weeks. Materials and Methods: A sample of 24 patients requiring lower anterior alignment were included in this single-center, single-operator, double-blind clinical trial and were randomly allocated into two groups of 12 patients. The type of wire selected for each patient was not disclosed to the provider or to the patient. Comparison of pretreatment characteristics of the archwire groups revealed no discrimination between two samples, thus verifying the random allocation of the intervention. An initial alginate impression of the lower arch was followed by impressions at 4-, 8-, and 12-week intervals. Casts were measured using the coordinate measuring machine to denote the degree of alignment. Duplicate readings of the cast series were taken to assess measurement variation. Results: A statistically significant difference (P < .05) in the mean values of tooth movement demonstrated the superior aligning efficiency of coaxial superelastic NiTi over single-stranded superelastic NiTi in relieving lower anterior crowding. The measurement error recorded was within acceptable limits, with range values within 95% limits of agreement. Conclusion: Coaxial superelastic NiTi wire proved superior to single-stranded NiTi in its efficiency in relieving lower anterior crowding over a 12-week period. (Angle Orthod. 2012;82:703-708.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据