Main Article Content
INTRODUCTION: There is a diverse range of orthodontic appliances available in clinical practice. However, there is also a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of different prescriptions on the final positioning of these teeth following rectangular strand insertion into orthodontic molar tubes. This study aimed to determine whether the torque present in the tubes of pre-adjusted devices of different prescriptions would alter the ideal inclination of the first and second lower and upper molars. METHODS: This study utilized plaster models from 30 patients who presented with ideal torque. Four prescriptions with tubes of 0.22x0.028" slot were used: MBT, Roth, Damon, and Edgewise. Tubes were glued on to plaster models on the vestibular side of teeth in the center of the clinical crown. In addition to this gluing position, the position of 1 millimeter below the center of crowns on lower models was evaluated. Gaps between tubes and steel rectangular wires of 0.019x0.025"or 0.021x0.025" thickness were measured, and the effective torque was calculated from these values. CONCLUSIONS: For 0.019x0.025" wires, a higher number of optimal torque maintenances was observed, regardless of the prescription tested, compared to 0.021x0.025" wires. The Roth prescription obtained the values closest to zero in the evaluation of the effective torque, indicating a small average torque change.
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
2. Mclaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Evolution of treatment mechanics and contemporary appliance design in orthodontics: A 40-year perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015Jun;147(6):654-662.
3. Pontes LF, CecimRL, Machado SM, Normando D. Tooth angulation and dental arch perimeter - The effect of orthodontic bracket prescription. Eur. J. Orthod. 2015Aug;37(4):435-439.
4. Brauchli LM, Steineck M, Wichelhaus A. Active and passive selfligation: a myth? Part 1: torque control. Angle Orthod. 2012Jul;82(4):663–669.
5. Alkhatib R, Chung H. Buccolingual inclination of first molars in untreated adults: A CBCT study. Angle Orthod. 2017Jul;87(4):598-602.
6. Jain M, Varghese J, Mascarenhas R, Mogra S, Shetty S, Dhakar N. Assessment of clinical outcomes of Roth and MBT bracket prescription using the American Board of Orthodontics Objective Grading System. ContempClinDent. 2013Jul;4(3):307-312.
7. Kim J, Chun Y, Kim M. Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2018Feb;153(2):298-307.
8. Mendonça MR, VerriACG, Fabre AF, Cuogh OA. Analysis of mesiodistal angulations of preadjusted brackets. Braz Oral Res. 2014Aug;28(1):1-8.
9. Lacarbonara M, Accivile E, Abed MR, Dinoi MT, Monaco A, Marzo G, et al. Variable torque prescription: stateof art. Open DentJ. 2015Jan;9[S/n]:60-64.
10. Van Loenen M, Degrieck J, Pauw G, Dermaut L. Anterior tooth morphology and its effect on torque. Eur J Orthod. 2005Jun;27(3):258-262.
11. Murakamik, Deguchi T, Hashimoto T, Imai M, Miyawaki S, Takano-Yamamoto T. Need for training sessions for orthodontists in the use of the American Board of Orthodontics objective grading system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007Jan;149(2):161-170.
12. Andrews LF. Interviews. J ClinOrthod. 1990Aug;24(8):493-509
13. Kannabiran P, ThirukondaGJ, Mahendra L. The crown angulations and inclinations in Dravidian population with normal occlusion. Indian J Dent Res.2017Jan-Feb;23(1):53-8.
14. Ugur T, Yukay F. Normal faciolingual inclinations of tooth crowns compared with treatment groups of standard and pretorqued brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997Jul;112(1):50-7
15. Vardimon AD, Lambertz W. Statistical evaluation of torque angles in reference to straight-wire appliance (SWA) theories. Am J Orthod. 1986Jan;89(1):56-66.
16. Echtermeyer S, Metelmann PH, Hemprich A, Dannhauer K-H, Krey K-F. Three dimensional morphology of first molars in relation to ethnicity and the occurrence of cleftlip and palate. PLoSONE. 2017 Oct;12(10):e0185472.https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185472. 7
17. Miethke RR, Melsen B. Effect of variation in tooth morphology and bracket position on first and third order correction with preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999Sep;116(3):329-35.
18. Gupta R, Shivaprakash G, Manohar MR, Sonali. Study model-based evaluation of built-in tip, torque, and in-out characteristics of a third-generation preadjusted Edgewise appliance. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017Jan;19(1):20-9.
19. Casko JS, Vaden JL, Kokich VG, Damone J, James RD, Cangialosi TJ. Objective grading system for dental casts and panoramic radiographs. American Board of Orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998Nov;114(5):589-99.
20. Gioka C, Eliades T. Materials-induced variation in the torque expression of preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004Mar;125(3):323-8.
21. Mavreas D, Kuppens E, Buyl R, Vannet BV. How orthodontic records can influence torque choice decisions? EurJOrthod. 2016Apr;38(2):212-216.
22. Papageorgiou SN, Sifakakis I, Keilig L, Patcas R, Affolter S, Eliades T. Torque differences according to tooth morphology and bracket placement: a finite element study. Eur J Orthod. 2017Aug;39(4):411-8.
23. Sifakakis I, Pandis N, Makou M, Eliades T, Katsaros C, Bourauel C. Torque efficiency of different archwires in 0.018- and 0.022-inch conventional brackets. Angle Orthod. 2013 Jan;84(1):149-154.
24. Mittal M, Thiruvenkatachari B, Sandler PJ, Benson PE. A three-dimensional comparison of torque achieved with a preadjusted edgewise appliance using a Roth or MBT prescription. Angle Orthod. 2015Mar;85(2):292-7.
25. Moesi B, Dyer F, Benson PE. Roth versus MBT: does bracket prescription have an effect on the subjective outcome of pre-adjusted edgewise treatment? Eur J Orthod. 2013Apr;35(2):236-43.
26. Daratsianos N, Bourauel C, Fimmers R, Jager A, Schwestka-Polly R. In vitro biomechanical analysis of torque capabilities of various 0.018'' lingual bracket-wire systems: total torque play and slot size. Eur J Orthod. 2016Oct;38(5):459-69.
27. Streva AM, Cotrim-Ferreira FA, Garib DG, Carvalho PE. Are torque values of preadjusted brackets precise? J Appl Oral Sci. 2011Jul-Aug;19(4):313-7.
28. Germane N, Bentley BE, Isaacson RJ. Three biologic variables modifying faciolingual tooth angulation by straight-wire appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989Oct;96(4):312-9.
29. Sardarian A, Danaei SM, Shahidi S, Boushehri SG, Geramy A. The effectof vertical bracket positioning on torque and the resultant stress in the periodontal ligament- Afinite element study. Prog Orthod. 2014Aug;15(50).
30. Pontes LF, CecimRL, Machado SM, Normando D. Tooth angulation and dental arch perimeter - The effect of orthodontic bracket prescription. Eur. J. Orthod.2015Aug;37(4):435-439.