Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
Objective: To determine if there are
differences between the 0.012, 0.014 and
0.016 NiTi archwires of three brands.
Material and methods: 180 NiTi archwires
of the following brands were used:
American Orthodontics, TD Orthodontics
and OrthoPremium. Descriptive statistics,
ANOVA and Post Hoc were performed in
the SPSS 18 program.
Results: The American Orthodontics
archwires presented significant statistical
differences in the anterior and posterior parts.
In the TD Orthodontics upper archwires,
contraction was found in the 0.016 caliber.
In the upper archwires, OrthoPremium
presented a contraction in the anterior part
and in the lower archwire of 10 to 40mm.
When comparing the three brands, significant
statistical differences (p <0.05) were found
between them with the ANOVA tests.
Conclusions: there are differences in the
sizes of the upper and lower archwires of
each brand and between them.
References
de los Alambres Termoactivados
para uso ortodóncico. Reporte de Caso. Int J
Odontostomat. 2012; 6 (1): 65-70.
2. Serrano G, Sáez G, Álvarez C, Kaori H. Estudio
comparativo de resistencia a la fatiga de arcos de
níquel-titanio de tres marcas. Rev. Mex. de Ort.
2014; 2 (4): 253-256.
3. Cervera-Sabater A, Simón-Pardell M. Fricción
en arco recto. Biomecánica básica. Rev Esp Ortod.
2003; 33: 65-72.
4. Claros M. Estudio comparativo in vitro de la
fricción de alambres según el tipo de aleación,
calibre y tipo de ligadura con y sin orthospeed
en un plano inclinado. Memoria para optar al
grado de doctor. Universidad Complutense de
Madrid; 2013.
5. Gómez A, Díaz del Castillo F. Nitinol, un biomaterial
con memoria de forma [Internet].
Cuautitlán Izcalli. 2011. [citado 2019 Sep 9].
Disponible en: http://olimpia.cuautitlan2.
unam.mx/pagina_ingenieria/mecanica/mat/
mat_mec/m6/Nitinol_un%20biomaterial.pdf.
6. Serrano G, Sáez G, Álvarez C, Kaori H. Estudio
comparativo de resistencia a la fatiga de arcos de
níquel-titanio de tres marcas. Rev. Mex. de Ort.
2014; 2(4): 253-256.
7. Orozco L, González M, Nácar M, Santillan N,
Sánchez C, Moreno W. Forma de los arcos dentales
en pacientes atendidos en la clínica multidisciplinaria
de Zaragoza. Rev. Esp. CS. 2011;
14(2): 82-87.
8. Mendoza-Sandoval P, Gutiérrez-Rojo J. Forma
de arco dental en ortodoncia. Rev. Tamé. 2015;
3 (9): 327-333.
9. Agurto P, Sandoval P. Morfología del Arco
Maxilar y Mandibular en Niños de Ascendencia
Mapuche y no Mapuche. Int. J. Morphol.
2011; 29(4):1104-1108
10. Gutiérrez G, Gutiérrez G. Prevalencia de forma
de los arcos dentales en adultos con maloclusión
y sin tratamiento ortodóncico. Rev. Odont.
Mex. 2006; 10 (3): 109-114.
11. Braun S, Hnat W, Leschinsky R, Legan H. An
evaluation of the shape of some popular nickel
titanium alloy preformed arch wires. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116 (1); 1-2.
12. Oda S, Arai K, Nakahara R. Commercially
avaible archwire forms compared with normal
dental arch forms in a Japanese population. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137 (4):
520-7.
13. Lee S, Lee S, Lim J, Park H, Wheeler T. Method
to classify dental arch forms. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 140 (1):87-96.
14. Ferro R, Pasini M, Fortini A. Arrighi A, Carli E,
Giuca M. Evaluation of maxillary and mandibular
arch forms in an italian adolescentes simple
with normocclusion. Euro J of Paediatric
Dent. 2017; 18 (3): 193-8.
15. Ahmed M, Shaikh A, Fida M. Evaluation of
conformity of preformed orthodontic archwires
and dental arch form. Dental Press J Orthod.
2019; 24 (1): 44-52.
16. Hedayati Z, Fakhri F, Moshkel V. Comparison
of commercially available arch wires with normal
dental arch in a group of Iranian population.
J Dent shiraz uni med Sci. 2015; 16 (2):
106-112.