The Robot Orthodontic Measurement and Simulation System (ROSS) is a novel biomechanical, dynamic, self-regulating setup for the simulation of tooth movement. The intrusion of the front teeth with forces greater than 0.5 N poses a risk for orthodontic-induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR). The aim was to investigate forces and moments during simulated tooth intrusion using ROSS. Five specimens of sixteen unmodified NiTi archwires and seven NiTi archwires with intrusion steps from different manufacturers (Forestadent, Ormco, Dentsply Sirona) with a 0.012″/0.014″/0.016″ wire dimension were tested. Overall, a higher wire dimension correlated with greater intrusive forces F_z (0.012″: 0.561–0.690 N; 0.014″: 0.996–1.321 N; 0.016″: 1.44–2.254 N) and protruding moments M_x (0.012″: −2.65 to −3.922 Nmm; 0.014″: −4.753 to −7.384 Nmm; 0.016″: −5.556 to −11.466 Nmm) during the simulated intrusion of a 1.6 mm-extruded upper incisor. However, the ‘intrusion efficiency’ parameter was greater for smaller wire dimensions. Modification with intrusion steps led to an overcompensation of the intrusion distance; however, it led to a severe increase in F_z and M_x, e.g., the Sentalloy 0.016″ medium (Dentsply Sirona) exerted 2.891 N and −19.437 Nmm. To reduce the risk for OIIRR, 0.014″ NiTi archwires can be applied for initial aligning (without vertical challenges), and intrusion steps for the vertical levelling of extruded teeth should be bent in the initial archwire, i.e., 0.012″ NiTi.

The aim of this study was to investigate the load deflection characteristics of Gummetal^® wires in comparison to nickel–titanium (NiTi) wires. Four different NiTi wires and one Gummetal^® archwire were analyzed in two dimensions (0.014″ (0.36 mm) and 0.016″ × 0.022″ (0.41 mm × 0.56 mm)) and in two different orientations (edgewise and ribbonwise) using three-point bending tests at T = 37 °C. Force–displacement curves were recorded and analyzed. The Gummetal^® 0.014″ wires exhibited higher forces compared to the NiTi wires at 2.0 mm deflection. At 1.0 mm deflection, the opposite pattern was observed. For the 0.016″ × 0.022″ Gummetal^® wires, the forces were within the force interval of the NiTi wires at 2.0 mm deflection. At a deflection of 1.0 mm, no residual force was measurable for the Gummetal^® wires. All the NiTi wires investigated showed hysteresis and a superelastic plateau. However, the Gummetal^® did not form a plateau, but hysteresis was present. An easier plastic deformability compared to the NiTi wires was observed for all the tested geometries.

The shape of superelastic Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) archwires can be adjusted with thermal treatments using devices such as the Memory-Maker^TM (Forestadent), which potentially affects their mechanical properties. The effect of such treatments on these mechanical properties was simulated by means of a laboratory furnace. Fourteen commercially available NiTi wires (0.018″ × 0.025″) were selected from the manufacturers American Orthodontics, Dentaurum, Forestadent, GAC, Ormco, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics and 3M Unitek. Specimens were heat treated using different combinations of annealing duration (1/5/10 min) and annealing temperature (250–800 °C) and investigated using angle measurements and three-point bending tests. Complete shape adaptation was found at distinct annealing durations/temperatures for each wire ranging between ~650–750 °C (1 min), ~550–700 °C (5 min) and ~450–650 °C (10 min), followed by a loss of superelastic properties shortly afterwards at ~750 °C (1 min), ~600–650 °C (5 min) and ~550–600 °C (10 min). Wire-specific working ranges (complete shaping without loss of superelasticity) were defined and a numerical score (e.g., stable forces) was developed for the three-point bending test. Overall, the wires Titanol Superelastic (Forestadent), Tensic (Dentaurum), FLI CuNiTi²⁷ (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics) and Nitinol Classic (3M Unitek) proved to be the most user-friendly. Thermal shape adjustment requires wire-specific working ranges to allow complete shape acceptance and high scores in bending test performance to ensure permanence of the superelastic behaviour.

(1) Background: After more than a decade since their first description, Inadvertent Tooth Movements (ITMs) remain an adverse effect of orthodontic retainers without a clear etiology. To further investigate the link between ITMs and the mechanical properties of different retainers, the response upon vertical loading was compared in three retainer types (two stainless steel and one nickel–titanium). The influence of different reference teeth was also considered. (2) Methods: Three retainers (R1, R2, R3) were tested in a newly developed biomechanical analysis system (FRANS). They were bonded to 3D-printed models of the lower anterior jaw and vertically displaced up to 0.3 mm. Developing forces and moments were recorded at the center of force. (3) Results: The vertical displacement caused vertical forces (Fz) and labiolingual moments (My) to arise. These were highest in the lateral incisors (up to 2.35 ± 0.59 N and 9.27 ± 5.86 Nmm for R1; 1.69 ± 1.06 N and 7.42 ± 2.65 Nmm for R2; 3.28 ± 1.73 N and 15.91 ± 9.71 Nmm for R3) for all analyzed retainers and with the R3 retainer for all analyzed reference teeth, while the lowest Fz and My values were recorded with the R1 retainer. (4) Conclusions: Displacements of 0.2 mm and larger provided forces and moments which could be sufficient to cause unwanted torque movements, such as ITMs, in all analyzed retainers. Clinicians must be mindful of these risks and perform post-treatment checkups on patients with retainers of all materials.

(1) Background: To further investigate the link between inadvertent tooth movements (ITMs) and mechanical properties of different retainers, the response upon vertical loading was compared in three different retainers (two stainless steel and one nickel-titanium). The influence of different reference teeth was also considered. (2) Methods: Three retainers (R1, R2, R3) were tested in a newly developed biomechanical analysis system (FRANS). They were bonded to 3D-printed models of the lower anterior jaw and vertically displaced up to 0.3mm. Developing forces and moments were recorded at the center of force. (3) Results: The vertical displacement caused vertical forces (Fz) and labiolingual moments (My) to arise. These were highest in the lateral incisors (up to 2.35±0.59N and 9.27±5.86Nmm for R1; 1.69±1.06N and 7.42±2.65Nmm for R2; 3.28±1.73N and 15.91±9.71Nmm for R3) for all analyzed retainers, and with the R3 retainer for all analyzed reference teeth, while the lowest Fz and My values were recorded with the R1 retainer. (4) Conclusions: Displacements of 0.2mm and larger provided forces and moments which could be sufficient to cause unwanted torque movements, such as ITMs in all analyzed retainers. Clinicians must be mindful of these risks and perform posttreatment checkups on patients with retainers of all materials.