Sevda ERKAN, Kübra YARADANAKUL, Berza ŞEN YILMAZ, Ezgi Sunal AKTÜRK

Comparison of the Nickel Titanium Alloy Archwires’ Dimensions with the Mean Arch Dimensions of a Turkish Sample

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı ortodontik tedavi görmemiş, Sınıf I oklüzyon gösteren ve ortodontik tedavi geçmişi olmayan Türk bireylerden oluşan bir örneklem grubundan elde edilen mandibular ark boyutları ile farklı üretici firmalar tarafından üretilen ark tellerinin boyutları arasındaki uyumun değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu araştırma kapsamında iskeletsel ve dental Sınıf I ilişkiye sahip, minimal çapraşıklığı bulunan toplam 40 bireyden mandibular alçı model elde edilmiştir. Ortodontik modeller fotokopi makinesi aracılığı ile iki boyuta indirgenmiş, interkanin mesafe, kanin derinliği, intermolar mesafe ve molar derinliği kaydedilmiştir. Aynı parametreler 5 üretici firma tarafından pazarlanan dikdörtgen kesitli 8 ark telinde (A’dan H’ye kadar isimlendirilmiş) de ölçülerek aradaki fark karşılaştırılmıştır.Bulgular: Çalışmada incelenen ark tellerinden interkanin mesafenin çalışma grubundaki bireylerin ark boyutlarına en uygun olan ark telinin ark B, intermolar mesafesi en uygun olan ark telinin ise ark A olduğu gözlenmiştir. Hem interkanin hem de intermolar mesafeleri birlikte değerlendirdiğimizde ise çalışma grubundaki bireylerin verileri ile en uyumlu ark telinin ark A olduğu gözlenmiştir. Çalışma grubundaki bireylerin ark boyutları ile en uyumsuz olan ark telinin ise ark D olduğu belirlenmiştir. Sonuç: Çalışmada değerlendirilen tüm ark tellerinin ark boyutları ile çalışma grubundaki bireylerin ark boyutları arasında farklılıklar gözlenmiştir. Ortodontik tedavi sonuçlarının idamesi konusunda bu bulguların dikkate alınması tavsiye edilebilir

Comparison of the Nickel Titanium Alloy Archwires’ Dimensions with the Mean Arch Dimensions of a Turkish Sample

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the harmony between the mandibular arch dimensions of a Turkish sample that has Class I occlusion without orthodontic treatment history and the arch dimensions of archwires produced by different manufacturers. Materials and Methods: Mandibular dental casts were fabricated from 40 individuals with dentoskeletal Class I relationships, with minimal crowding. Dental casts were reduced to two dimensions using a photocopy machine, the intercanine distance, canine depth, intermolar distance and molar depth was recorded. The same parameters were measured in 8 rectangular archwires (named from A to H) marketed by 5 manufacturers and the measurement differences were compared. Results: The archwire whose intercanine distance was the most suitable for the arch dimensions of the individuals in the study group was arch B, and the archwire with the most suitable intermolar distance was arch A. When the intercanine and intermolar distances were evaluated together, the archwire most compatible with the data of the individuals in the study group was arch A. The archwire that was the most incompatible with the arch dimensions of the individuals in the study group was arch D. Conclusion: Differences were observed between the arch dimensions of all archwires evaluated in the study and the arch dimensions of the individuals in the study group. It may be advisable to take this findin

PDF

___

1. Andrews LF. The straight-wire appliance. Br J Orthod 1979; 6: 125-43.
2. Hawley CA. Determination of the normal arch, and its application to orthodontia. Dent Cosmos 1905; 47: 541-52.
3. Currier JH. A computerized geometric analysis of human dental arch form. Am J Orthod 1969; 56: 164-79.
4. Felton JM, Sinclair PM, Jones DL, Alexander RG. A computerized analysis of the shape and stability of mandibular arch form. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 92: 478-83.
5. Glenn G, Sinclair PM, Alexander RG. Nonextraction orthodontic therapy: posttreatment dental and skeletal stability. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987; 92: 321-8.
6. Little RM. Stability and relapse of dental arch alignment. Br J Orthod 1990; 17: 235-41.
7. Burke SP, Silveira AM, Goldsmith LJ, Yancey JM, Van Stewart A, Scarfe WC. A meta-analysis of mandibular intercanine width in treatment and postretention. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 53-60.
8. Oda S, Arai K, Nakahara R. Commercially available archwire forms compared with normal dental arch forms in a Japanese population. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 520-7.
9. Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Evaluation of conformity of preformed orthodontic archwires and dental arch form. Dental Press J Orthod 2019; 24: 44-52.
10. Braun S, Hnat WP, Leschinsky R, Legan HL. An evaluation of the shape of some popular nickel titanium alloy preformed arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 116: 1-12.
11. McNamara C, Drage KJ, Sandy JR, Ireland AJ. An evaluation of clinicians' choices when selecting archwires. Eur J Orthod 2010; 32: 54-9.
12. Boley JC, Mark JA, Sachdeva RC, Buschang PH. Long-term stability of Class I premolar extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 277-87.
13. Bishara SE, Jakobsen JR, Treder J, Nowak A. Arch width changes from 6 weeks to 45 years of age. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 111: 401-9.
14. Nojima K, McLaughlin RP, Isshiki Y, Sinclair PM. A comparative study of Caucasian and Japanese mandibular clinical arch forms. Angle Orthod 2001; 71: 195-200.
15. Olmez S, Dogan S. Comparison of the arch forms and dimensions in various malocclusions of the Turkish population. Open J Stomatol 2011; 1: 158-64.
16. Celebi AA, Keklik H, Tan E, Ucar FI. Comparison of arch forms between Turkish and North American. Dental Press J Orthod 2016; 21: 51-8.
17. Ward DE, Workman J, Brown R, Richmond S. Changes in arch width. A 20-year longitudinal study of orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 6-13.
18. Kook YA, Nojima K, Moon HB, McLaughlin RP, Sinclair PM. Comparison of arch forms between Korean and North American white populations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 126: 680-6.