Dual-section Versus Conventional Archwire for En-masse Retraction of Anterior Teeth with Direct Skeletal Anchorage: a Finite Element Analysis

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2021 Feb 26

PMID 33632190

Authors

Ryo Hamanaka

Daniele Cantarella

Luca Lombardo

Lorena Karanxha

Massimo Del Fabbro

Giuseppe Siciliani

Noriaki Yoshida

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study is to compare the biomechanical effects of the conventional 0.019 × 0.025-in stainless steel archwire with the dual-section archwire when en-masse retraction is performed with sliding mechanics and skeletal anchorage.

Methods: Models of maxillary dentition equipped with the 0.019 × 0.025-in archwire and the dual-section archwire, whose anterior portion is 0.021 × 0.025-in and posterior portion is 0.018 × 0.025-in were constructed. Then, long-term tooth movement during en-masse retraction was simulated using the finite element method. Power arms of 8, 10, 12 and 14 mm length were employed to control anterior torque, and retraction forces of 2 N were applied with a direct skeletal anchorage.

Results: For achieving bodily movement of the incisors, power arms longer than 14 mm were required for the 0.019 × 0.025-in archwire, while between 8 and 10 mm for the dual-section archwire. The longer the power arms, the greater the counter-clockwise rotation of the occlusal plane was produced. Frictional resistance generated between the archwire and brackets and tubes on the posterior teeth was smaller than 5% of the retraction force of 2 N.

Conclusions: The use of dual-section archwire might bring some biomechanical advantages as it allows to apply retraction force at a considerable lower height, and with a reduced occlusal plane rotation, compared to the conventional archwire. Clinical studies are needed to confirm the present results.

References

Carano A, Velo S, Leone P, Siciliani G . Clinical applications of the Miniscrew Anchorage System. J Clin Orthod. 2005; 39(1):9-24. View

Hamanaka R, Yamaoka S, Nguyen Anh T, Tominaga J, Koga Y, Yoshida N . Numeric simulation model for long-term orthodontic tooth movement with contact boundary conditions using the finite element method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 152(5):601-612. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2017.03.021. View

Tominaga J, Tanaka M, Koga Y, Gonzales C, Kobayashi M, Yoshida N . Optimal loading conditions for controlled movement of anterior teeth in sliding mechanics. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79(6):1102-7. DOI: 10.2319/111608-587R.1. View

Olson J, Liu Y, Nickel J, Walker M, Iwasaki L . Archwire vibration and stick-slip behavior at the bracket-archwire interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142(3):314-22. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.03.032. View

Lombardo L, Arreghini A, Bratti E, Mollica F, Spedicato G, Merlin M . Comparative analysis of real and ideal wire-slot play in square and rectangular archwires. Angle Orthod. 2014; 85(5):848-58. PMC: 8610385. DOI: 10.2319/072214-510.1. View

Sia S, Koga Y, Yoshida N . Determining the center of resistance of maxillary anterior teeth subjected to retraction forces in sliding mechanics. An in vivo study. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77(6):999-1003. DOI: 10.2319/112206-478. View

Cheng S, Tseng I, Lee J, Kok S . A prospective study of the risk factors associated with failure of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19(1):100-6. View

Kusy R, Whitley J . Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin Orthod. 1998; 3(3):166-77. DOI: 10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80067-9. View

Jung M, Kim T . Biomechanical considerations in treatment with miniscrew anchorage. Part 1: the sagittal plane. J Clin Orthod. 2008; 42(2):79-83. View

10.

Kusy R, Whitley J, Prewitt M . Comparison of the frictional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod. 1991; 61(4):293-302. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0293:COTFCF>2.0.CO;2. View

11.

Ozaki H, Tominaga J, Hamanaka R, Sumi M, Chiang P, Tanaka M . Biomechanical aspects of segmented arch mechanics combined with power arm for controlled anterior tooth movement: A three-dimensional finite element study. J Dent Biomech. 2015; 6:1758736014566337. PMC: 4299366. DOI: 10.1177/1758736014566337. View

12.

Ziegler P, Ingervall B . A clinical study of maxillary canine retraction with a retraction spring and with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 95(2):99-106. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90388-0. View

13.

Gjessing P . Controlled retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 101(2):120-31. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(92)70003-S. View

14.

Cantarella D, Lombardo L, Siciliani G . The dynforce archwire. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2013; 4(2):204-11. PMC: 3755796. View

15.

Arreghini A, Lombardo L, Mollica F, Siciliani G . Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross section. Prog Orthod. 2014; 15:53. PMC: 4176837. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-014-0053-x. View

16.

Tominaga J, Ozaki H, Chiang P, Sumi M, Tanaka M, Koga Y . Effect of bracket slot and archwire dimensions on anterior tooth movement during space closure in sliding mechanics: a 3-dimensional finite element study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146(2):166-74. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.04.016. View