目的:一种TiNb合金丝(GUMMETAL®[GM],丰田中央研发实验室,Inc.,Nagakute,日本)最近开发了具有独特性能的正畸应用。这项试点的裂口随机对照试验比较了使用GM滑动力学在空间闭合过程中上颌犬的回缩与不锈钢(SS)弓丝。
方法:在2020年9月至2022年3月期间,对符合纳入标准的受试者进行固定矫治器和上颌第一前磨牙拔除治疗。调平对齐后,上颌弓丝,通过将0.016×0.022“GM和SS弓丝的段压接在一起制造,放置并使用镍钛螺旋弹簧开始犬类收缩。在0、4、8和12周叠加上颌弓的数字模型,并将犬的运动量(mm),移动速率(毫米/月),和三维变化(旋转,垂直挤压,tip)进行了统计测量和比较。
结果:在招募的12名受试者中,只有6人完成研究,中位年龄为15.8岁(12.0~17.4岁).12周时,GM组的犬回缩中位数为3.41mm(IQR:2.10,4.76),SS组的犬回缩中位数为3.71mm(IQR:1.62,6.45).回缩率为1.14mm/月(IQR:0.69,1.59),使用GM,与1.24mm/月(IQR:0.54,2.15)与SS。中位数旋转,犬的垂直和尖端变化为7.90,0.59mm和带有GM的6.15,和7.25,0.29mm和2.05与SS。所有测量值的组间差异均无统计学意义。
结论:在上颌犬牙回缩期间,GM和SS之间没有发现显着差异。GM展示了太空闭合力学的临床潜力,然而,未来需要更大的研究。
OBJECTIVE: A TiNb alloy wire (GUMMETAL® [GM], Toyota Central R&D Labs, Inc., Nagakute, Japan) was recently developed with unique properties for orthodontic applications. This pilot split-mouth randomized controlled
trial compared maxillary canine retraction during space closure using sliding mechanics on GM vs. stainless steel (SS) archwires.
METHODS: Subjects who met the inclusion criteria were treated with fixed appliances and maxillary first-premolar extractions between September 2020 and March 2022. After leveling and aligning, maxillary archwires, fabricated by crimping together segments of 0.016×0.022\" GM and SS archwires, were placed and canine retraction initiated using nickel-titanium coil springs. Digital models of the maxillary arch were superimposed at 0, 4, 8 and 12 weeks and the amount of canine movement (mm), rate of movement (mm/month), and 3-dimensional changes (rotational, vertical extrusion, tip) were measured and compared statistically.
RESULTS: Of the 12 subjects recruited, only six completed the
study with a median age of 15.8 years (12.0-17.4 years). At 12 weeks, the median canine retraction was 3.41mm (IQR: 2.10, 4.76) with GM versus 3.71mm (IQR: 1.62, 6.45) with SS. The retraction rate was 1.14mm/month (IQR: 0.69, 1.59) with GM, versus 1.24mm/month (IQR: 0.54, 2.15) with SS. The median rotational, vertical and tip changes of the canine were 7.90̊, 0.59mm and 6.15̊ with GM, and 7.25̊, 0.29mm and 2.05̊ with SS. Intergroup differences with all measurements were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences were found between GM and SS during maxillary canine retraction. GM demonstrated clinical potential for space closure mechanics, however, future larger studies are needed.