Static frictional force and surface roughness of various bracket and wire combinations

Doshi, Umal H.; Bhad, Wasundhara A.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.031

Cited by 104 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…22 b-Ti archwires were the roughest, which could be associated with the great friction generated by this material. 23,24 These data are consistent with those from the study of Doshi and BhadPatil, 25 which showed higher values of surface roughness for TMA, but they are in contrast with the results of several studies 5 in which NiTi wires were considered the roughest. Titanium Memory Esthetic, a Teflon-coated wire, was the least rough among the NiTi archwires, being slightly rougher than Stainless Steel.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 43%

Evaluation of surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic force microscopy

D’Antò

Rongo

Ametrano

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the surface roughness of different orthodontic archwires. Materials and Methods: Four nickel-titanium wires (SentalloyH, SentalloyH High Aesthetic, Titanium Memory ThermaTi LiteH, and Titanium Memory EstheticH), three b-titanium wires (TMAH, Colored TMAH, and Beta TitaniumH), and one stainless-steel wire (Stainless SteelH) were considered for this study. Three samples for each wire were analyzed by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Three-dimensional images were processed using Gwiddion software, and the roughness average (Ra), the root mean square (Rms), and the maximum height (Mh) values of the scanned surface profile were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post hoc test (P , .05). Results: The Ra, Rms, and Mh values were expressed as the mean 6 standard deviation. Among as-received archwires, the Stainless Steel (Ra 5 36.6 6 5.8; Rms 5 48 6 7.7; Mh 5 328.1 6 64) archwire was less rough than the others (ANOVA, P , .05). The Sentalloy High Aesthetic was the roughest (Ra 5 133.5 6 10.8; Rms 5 165.8 6 9.8; Mh 5 949.6 6 192.1) of the archwires. Conclusions: The surface quality of the wires investigated differed significantly. Ion implantation effectively reduced the roughness of TMA. Moreover, TeflonH-coated Titanium Memory Esthetic was less rough than was ion-implanted Sentalloy High Aesthetic. (Angle Orthod. 2012;82:922-928.)

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 43%

Evaluation of surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic force microscopy

D’Antò

Rongo

Ametrano

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The purpose of ion implantation is to increase the hardness, reduce flexibility and improve the surface finish (21). However, in order to obtain maximum frictional reduction, this ion implantation must be performed periodically (22).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deflection and Flexural Strength Effects on the Roughness of Aesthetic-Coated Orthodontic Wires

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim was to evaluate the flexural strength and the effects of deflection on the surface roughness of esthetic orthodontic wires. The sample consisted of 70 archwire 0.014-inch: polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE)-coated Nickel-Titanium (Niti) archwires (Titanol Cosmetic-TC, Flexy Super Elastic Esthetic-FSE, esthetic Nickel Titanium Wire-ANT); epoxy resin-coated Niti archwires (Spectra-S, Niticosmetic-TEC); gold and rhodium coated Niti (Sentalloy-STC) and a control group (superelastic Niti (Nitinol-NS). The initial roughness was evaluated with a rugosimeter. After that, the wires were submitted to flexural test in an universal testing machine. Each wire was deflected up to 2 mm at a speed of 1 mm/min. After flexural test, the roughness of the wires was evaluted on the same surface as that used for the initial evaluation. The data of roughness and flexural strength were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). Student t-test compared roughness before and after deflection (α =0.05). The roughness of S and ANT (epoxy resin and PTFE-coated wires, respectively), before and after deflection, was significantly higher than the other groups (p<0.05). Wire deflection significantly increased the roughness of the wires S and STC (p<0.05). The flexural strength of groups FSE and NS (PTFE and uncoated) was higher compared with that of the other groups (p<0.05). We concluded that the roughness and flexural strength of the orthodontic wires does not depend on the type of the esthetic coating, but it is influenced by the method of application of this coating. The deflection can increase the roughness of the esthetic orthodontic wires.

show abstract

“…15 Clinically, a rough surface encourages greater plaque accumulation, influences its friction properties, and increases corrosion and color instability. 11,12,16,17 Among the available techniques for determining surface roughness, AFM seems to be the most suitable for the investigation of surface topography. This noninvasive technique produces a more detailed surface profile delivering a three-dimensional, realistic impression and giving quantitative and qualitative height measurements.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Among the properties in the search for the ideal archwire, the surface topography plays an important role and can critically modify the efficiency of orthodontic components. 10,11 Further, increased surface roughness can increase the friction coefficient 12 and is an essential factor in determining the effectiveness of archwire-guided tooth movement. 11 Thus, besides coating stability, it is necessary that a coated archwire present characteristics at least comparable to the conventional, most-used archwires, like SS and NiTi alloys, when exposed to an oral environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Coating stability and surface characteristics of esthetic orthodontic coated archwires

Silva

Mattos

Simão

et al. 2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the coating thickness of four brands of as-received esthetic coated rectangular archwires and their surface characteristics and coating stability after 21 days of oral exposure compared to those of conventional stainless steel (SS) and nickel titanium (NiTi) ones. Materials and Methods: The labial surface of the selected archwires was observed with a stereoscope and in a scanning electron microscope, and surface roughness was assessed with an atomic force microscope. The coating thickness of as-received wires and the percentage of coating lost on the labial surface of retrieved wires were measured using Image Pro Plus 4.5 software. Results: All groups showed an average coating thickness of less than 0.002 inches. After oral exposure, archwires from two groups lost all coating on the labial surface. On average, 28.71% and 72.90% of the coating was lost in each of the other two groups, and the surface roughness of the remaining coating was higher than postclinical control wires. Conclusion: Coated archwires had a low esthetic value as they presented a nondurable coating. The remaining coating showed a severe deterioration and a greater surface roughness than postclinical control counterparts (conventional SS and NiTi wires). (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:994-1001.)

show abstract

Static frictional force and surface roughness of various bracket and wire combinations

Cited by 104 publications

References 9 publications

Evaluation of surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic force microscopy

Evaluation of surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic force microscopy

Deflection and Flexural Strength Effects on the Roughness of Aesthetic-Coated Orthodontic Wires

Coating stability and surface characteristics of esthetic orthodontic coated archwires

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About