There is no reliable evidence from the trials included in this review that any specific initial arch wire material is better or worse than another with regard to speed of alignment or pain. There is no evidence at all about the effect of initial arch wire materials on the important adverse effect of root resorption. Further well-designed and conducted, adequately-powered, RCTs are required to determine whether the performance of initial arch wire materials as demonstrated in the laboratory, makes a clinically important difference to the alignment of teeth in the initial stage of orthodontic treatment in patients.
Clinical comparison and performance perspective of three aligning arch wires.
To clinically evaluate three commonly used orthodontic tooth aligning arch wires: 016 x 022 inch active martensitic medium force nickel titanium, 016 x 022 inch graded force active martensitic nickel titanium, and 0.0155 inch multistrand stainless steel.
                A prospective randomized clinical trial.
                Measured serial study casts of dental arches for 112 assigned arch wires from 56 consecutive patients. Analysis based on completed records for 98 arch wires and 51 patients.
                A consecutive sample of 56 patients requiring both upper and lower fixed appliance therapy were randomly allocated two different arch wires from a possible three under trial. Good quality impressions were taken of the dental arches at the designated serial stages of alignment (start, T0; 4 weeks, T4; 8 weeks, T8). The resultant casts were measured on a Reflex Microscope to record the change in individual tooth alignment both in three and two dimensions (horizontal plane only).
                The measurement error was within acceptable limits (range, 0.05 to 0.09 mm) and showed no significant bias. ANOVA statistical models were fitted to the data to adjust for a number of variables. No significant difference in aligning capability (p > 0.05), in either two or three dimensions, was demonstrated between the three arch wires in the trial.
                Heat activated nickel titanium arch wires failed to demonstrate a better performance than the cheaper multistrand stainless steel wires in this randomized clinical trial. The failure to demonstrate in vivo superiority at the clinical level may be due to the confounding effects of large variations in individual metabolic response. Alternatively, it may be that in routine clinical practice NiTi-type wires are not sufficiently deformed to allow their full superelastic properties to come in to play during initial alignment.