Attaining a working archwire--which sequence?
METHODS
This was a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT).


METHODS
Patients were treated in three centres and randomly allocated to one of three groups, as follows: group A used 0.016-inch nickel titanium (NiTi), 0.018x0.025-inch NiTi and 0.019x0.025-inch stainless steel (SS); group B used 0.016-inch NiTi, 0.016-inch SS, 0.020-inch SS and 0.019x0.025-inch SS; and group C used 0.016x0.022-inch copper-NiTi, 0.019x0.025-inch copper-NiTi and 0.019x0.025-inch SS.


METHODS
Outcome measures were patient discomfort at each archwire change and total discomfort for each archwire sequence, root resorption (root length) of an upper left central incisor (in mm), and time to reach an upper and lower working archwire (0.019x0.025-inch SS) in months, and also the number of visits.


RESULTS
There were no statistically significant differences between archwire sequences A, B or C in terms of patient discomfort (P>0.05) or root resorption (P 0.58). The number of visits required to reach a working archwire was greater for sequence B than for A (P 0.012) but this could not be explained by the increased number of archwires used in sequence B.


CONCLUSIONS
The archwire sequences investigated were not statistically significantly different in terms of patient discomfort and upper incisor root resorption. However, clinicians may choose sequence A to minimise the number of visits required to attain a working archwire.
Flores-Mir
Carlos
C
University of Alberta, Graduate Orthodontic Program, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.