Publication: Clinical implications of preformed archwire selection on the treatment of angle class I/II division 1 malocclusions in thais
Issued Date
2015-05-01
Resource Type
ISSN
0973709X
2249782X
2249782X
Other identifier(s)
2-s2.0-84928988237
Rights
Mahidol University
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Vol.9, No.5 (2015), ZC24-ZC29
Suggested Citation
Kittipong Dacha, Pornrachanee Sawaengkit, Jiraporn Chaiwat, Montip Tiensuwan Clinical implications of preformed archwire selection on the treatment of angle class I/II division 1 malocclusions in thais. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Vol.9, No.5 (2015), ZC24-ZC29. doi:10.7860/JCDR/2015/9658.5890 Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/35460
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Authors
Journal Issue
Thesis
Title
Clinical implications of preformed archwire selection on the treatment of angle class I/II division 1 malocclusions in thais
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
© 2015, Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. All rights reserved. Introduction: The dental arch forms were compared of untreated Class I and Class II div 1 malocclusions to those of non-customized preformed archwires manufactured by American Orthodontics, G&H, Highland, Ormco, RMO, and 3MUnitek. Arch forms of post-treatment Class II div 1 malocclusions treated by four 1st premolar extractions are also compared. Materials and Methods: Four metrics of archform shape and size (canine and 1st molar depth and inter-canine and inter 1st molar width) were measured on dental casts of 40 Class I and 22 Class II div 1 patients. These same metrics were also used to describe preformed archwire forms. Results: Non-customized preformed wires all showed significantly narrowed mandibular arch forms. This was true for maxillary archwires, with four exceptions. The Highland Natural Arch form, G&H True form I, and RMO natural preformed archwires showed both inter-canine and 1st molar widths statistically the same as mean dental arch widths in both the untreated and post-treatment Class II groups. In Class I patients, these three archwires showed only inter-canine widths equivalent to dental measurements. The Highland Progressive archwire matched only the 1st molar width in the untreated Class II group. Conclusion: None of these archwires – if used unadjusted, will produce a significant expansive force in either the maxillary or mandibular arch. Three maxillary non-customized preformed archwires showed both inter-canine and 1st molar arch widths statistically the same as Thai Class II div 1 dental arch dimensions. Using them to treat this malocclusion should minimally affect both pre and post-treatment maxillary arch form.