title: Initial arch wires for tooth alignment during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Initial arch wires are the first arch wires to be inserted into the fixed appliance at the beginning of orthodontic treatment and are used mainly for the alignment of teeth by correcting crowding and rotations. With a number of different types 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. This is an update of the review 'Initial arch wires for alignment of crooked teeth with ﬁxed orthodontic braces' first published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To assess the effects of initial arch wires for alignment of teeth with fixed orthodontic braces in relation to alignment speed, root resorption and pain intensity.
  
  
  METHODS
  We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 2 August 2012), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 7), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 2 August 2012) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 2 August 2012). We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. We contacted all authors of included studies to identify additional studies.
  
  
  METHODS
  We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of initial arch wires to align teeth with fixed orthodontic braces. Only studies involving participants with upper and/or lower full arch fixed orthodontic appliances were included.
  
  
  METHODS
  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.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Nine RCTs with 571 participants were included in this review. All trials were at high risk of bias and a number of methodological limitations were identified. All trials had at least one potentially confounding factor (such as bracket type, slot size, ligation method, extraction of teeth) which is likely to have influenced the outcome and was not controlled in the trial. None of the trials reported the important adverse outcome of root resorption.Three groups of comparisons were made.(1) Multistrand stainless steel initial arch wires compared to superelastic nickel titanium (NiTi) initial arch wires. There were four trials in this group, with different comparisons and outcomes reported at different times. No meta-analysis was possible. There is insufficient evidence from these trials to determine whether or not there is a difference in either rate of alignment or pain between stainless steel and NiTi initial arch wires.(2) Conventional (stabilised) NiTi initial arch wires compared to superelastic NiTi initial arch wires. There were two trials in this group, one reporting the outcome of alignment over 6 months and the other reporting pain over 1 week. There is insufficient evidence from these trials to determine whether or not there is any difference between conventional (stabilised) and superelastic NiTi initial arch wires with regard to either alignment or pain.(3) Single-strand superelastic NiTi initial arch wires compared to other NiTi (coaxial, copper NiTi (CuNiTi) or thermoelastic) initial arch wires. The three trials in this comparison each compared a different product against single-strand superelastic NiTi. There is very weak unreliable evidence, based on one very small study (n = 24) at high risk of bias, that coaxial superelastic NiTi may produce greater tooth movement over 12 weeks, but no information on associated pain or root resorption. This result should be interpreted with caution until further research evidence is available. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether or not there is a difference between either thermoelastic or CuNiTi and superelastic NiTi initial arch wires.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  There is no reliable evidence from the trials included in this review that any specific initial arch wire material is better or worse than another with regard to speed of alignment or pain. There is no evidence at all about the effect of initial arch wire materials on the important adverse effect of root resorption. Further well-designed and conducted, adequately-powered, RCTs are required to determine whether the performance of initial arch wire materials as demonstrated in the laboratory, makes a clinically important difference to the alignment of teeth in the initial stage of orthodontic treatment in patients.
authors: Department of Orthodontics, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University,Chengdu, China.
authors: Fan
authors: F
authors: Jian
authors: Wenli
authors: W
authors: Lai
authors: Susan
authors: S
authors: Furness
authors: Grant T
authors: GT
authors: McIntyre
authors: Declan T
authors: DT
authors: Millett
authors: Joy
authors: J
authors: Hickman
authors: Yan
authors: Y
authors: Wang
mesh_terms: D003722:Dental Alloys; D006801:Humans; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets / Q000592:standards*; D009969:Orthodontic Wires / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000592:standards*; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D012391:Root Resorption / Q000209:etiology; D014087:Tooth Movement Techniques / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation*; D014098:Toothache / Q000209:etiology
chemical_list: D003722:Dental Alloys
references: Eur J Orthod. 1999 Aug;21(4):387-96
references: 10502901
references: J Orthod. 2011 Mar;38(1):32-9
references: 21367826
references: Acta Odontol Scand. 1997 Oct;55(5):325-8
references: 9370032
references: Explore (NY). 2005 Jan;1(1):40-5
references: 16791967
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Sep;136(3):340-7
references: 19732667
references: Eur J Orthod. 2009 Apr;31(2):180-3
references: 19064676
references: J Orofac Orthop. 1998;59(6):331-9
references: 9857602
references: Am J Orthod. 1980 Jul;78(1):81-8
references: 6930173
references: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Apr 14;(4):CD007859
references: 20393961
references: Am J Orthod. 1983 Jun;83(6):453-9
references: 6574702
references: Br Dent J. 1993 May 8;174(9):315-29
references: 8484998
references: Eur J Orthod. 1990 Nov;12(4):380-4
references: 2086257
references: Eur J Orthod. 1983 Aug;5(3):173-83
references: 6578039
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Aug;136(2):152.e1-7;discussion 152-3
references: 19651336
references: Angle Orthod. 2009 Jan;79(1):46-50
references: 19123718
references: Eur J Orthod. 1996 Aug;18(4):349-57
references: 8921656
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989 Aug;96(2):100-9
references: 2667330
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991 Jan;99(1):35-43
references: 1986524
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995 Nov;108(5):464-71
references: 7484965
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jul;136(1):8.e1-8; discussion 8-9
references: 19577132
references: Am J Orthod. 1975 Nov;68(5):554-63
references: 1059332
references: Br J Orthod. 1993 Feb;20(1):25-35
references: 8439528
references: Orthod Craniofac Res. 2004 Feb;7(1):21-5
references: 14989751
references: Clin Orthod Res. 1998 Aug;1(1):12-9
references: 9918641
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Nov;116(5):522-9
references: 10547511
references: Med Care. 1984 Dec;22(12):1101-14
references: 6513619
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jun;119(6):587-93
references: 11395701
references: Quintessence Int. 2012 Jan;43(1):61-9
references: 22259810
references: Aust Orthod J. 1988 Mar;10(3):180-2
references: 3166620
references: Community Dent Health. 2007 Sep;24(3):145-8
references: 17958074
references: Angle Orthod. 2012 Jul;82(4):703-8
references: 22011096
references: World J Orthod. 2009 Spring;10(1):29-32
references: 19388430
references: BMJ. 1997 Sep 13;315(7109):629-34
references: 9310563
references: Eur J Orthod. 1984 Feb;6(1):48-54
references: 6583064
references: J Dent Res. 1999 Mar;78(3):784-9
references: 10096454
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Jul;114(1):32-9
references: 9674677
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):208-15
references: 17693371
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jun;119(6):594-603
references: 11395702
references: J Clin Orthod. 2002 Nov;36(11):627-36; quiz 637-8
references: 12514853
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992 Oct;102(4):373-81
references: 1456222
references: J Orthod. 2009 Mar;36(1):42-51; discussion 15
references: 19286875
references: Angle Orthod. 1997;67(3):197-207
references: 9188964
references: Am J Orthod. 1981 Jul;80(1):1-16
references: 6942654
references: Eur J Orthod. 2003 Aug;25(4):335-42
references: 12938838
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986 Jul;90(1):1-10
references: 3460342
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989 Jul;96(1):47-53
references: 2750720
references: J Clin Orthod. 1990 Oct;24(10):611-3
references: 2084149
references: Eur J Orthod. 2006 Dec;28(6):561-6
references: 17041083
references: Br J Orthod. 1996 Aug;23(3):269-75
references: 8894161
references: Eur J Orthod. 2004 Feb;26(1):79-85
references: 14994886
references: Am J Orthod. 1985 Jun;87(6):445-52
references: 3890554
references: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Feb;131(2):229-37
references: 17276864
references: SADJ. 2005 Sep;60(8):334-6, 338
references: 16255415