Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify clinically relevant factors for changes in axial angulation of incisors during routine fixed appliance orthodontic treatment. METHODS: A total of 106 patients (grades 1-2 of IOTN, 64 females, 42 males; mean age: 15.5 years) from a private practice and treated with metal or ceramic brackets were included in this retrospective cohort study. The axial angulation of the upper and lower incisors was measured on lateral cephalograms before insertion of the first rectangular 0.016 × 0.022-in NiTi archwire (T0) and at the end of treatment about 8 weeks after insertion of the working 0.019 × 0.025-in stainless steel archwire (T1). Treatment-related changes according to bracket type, initial situation, premolar extraction, angle class, and skeletal vertical configuration were analyzed. RESULTS: Although statistically significant treatment-related changes were seen for both the upper incisors (+ 1.3°) and the lower incisors (- 5.2°), only in ten patients (9.4%) was the prescribed torque value of 17° for the upper incisors and in no patient for the lower incisors achieved. A negative association between the induced change of axial angulation of incisors and the initial values was detected for the upper incisors as well as for the lower incisors. A comparison of the angle classes revealed significant differences in incisor changes. At the end of therapy, only a slight change for the upper central incisors in patients in angle class I cases and a significantly greater change in patients with angle class II/2 was observed. Cases with premolar extraction ended with lower axial angulation of the incisor than cases without extraction. The individual analysis of possible influencing factors also revealed an association with the vertical skeletal configuration. CONCLUSIONS: For the first time, the presented data show clinically relevant influencing factors for incisor axial angulation changes of the upper and lower incisors in relation to the torque value of the applied brackets in the course of routine clinical practice. For the orthodontist, it remains mandatory to decide whether a customized system must be individualized in order to achieve individual therapy goals.