To Compare the Accuracy of 0.022 Inch Slot of Stainless Steel and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets Marketed by Different Manufacturers

Abstract

Aim of the Study: The aim of the present study was to analyze the accuracy of 0.022 inch slot of stainless steel and ceramic orthodontic brackets marketed by different manufacturers. Materials and Methods: An in vitro study was done on upper left central incisor bracket of MBT 0.022 slot of American orthodontics (AO), 3M Unitek, Ormco with each 20 of stainless steel and ceramic brackets divided into six groups, and the total sample was 120. The brackets were scanned with stereo microscope of Magnus Company and Image Pro plus analysis software was used to evaluate the mesial face and base, distal face and base. Results: Comparison in between the groups of stainless steel showed that 3M Unitek brackets showed higher slot widths as compared to AO and Ormco which was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Comparison in between the groups of ceramic brackets of AO brackets showed higher slot widths as compared to Ormco and 3M Unitek ceramic brackets which was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Conclusion: By this study, there was a difference between stated values and measured values of brackets displaying inaccuracies in dimension. A clear impreciseness about the appliance could be needed during the finishing and detailing stage to avoid loss of torque control due to slot oversize and the divergence of slot walls.

Evaluating orthodontic bracket slot dimensions and morphology: A narrative review

“…unit standardization; they are among the researchers who have defined the spectrum of slot and archwire manufacturing features. [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ]…”

“…These comprise leaf gauges, pin gauges, digital gauges, a profile projector microscope, a stereomicroscope, an optical microscope, a scanning electron microscope, and a micro-CT scanner. [ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 ]…”

Evaluation of Biocompatibility of 316 L Stainless Steels Coated with TiN, TiCN, and Ti-DLC Films

“…According to our previous results on XRD [20], peaks of C and TiC were observed in both the TiCN and Ti-DLC films, but the latter was more pronounced, indicating that According to our previous results on XRD [20], peaks of C and TiC were observed in both the TiCN and Ti-DLC films, but the latter was more pronounced, indicating that more TiC was formed. From our previous experimental results of Raman spectroscopy [20], the response intensity for sp 2 -hybridized C in Ti-DLC films was approximately 50 times higher than that for sp 3 -hybridized C. It was found that a certain amount of sp 3 -hybridized C was present in the Ti-DLC films, and the D peak area was significantly larger than the G peak area (ID/IG = 2.79). This indicates that the proportion of sp 2 -hybridized C was higher than that of sp 3 -hybridized C.…”

“…more TiC was formed. From our previous experimental results of Raman spectroscopy [20], the response intensity for sp 2 -hybridized C in Ti-DLC films was approximately 50 times higher than that for sp 3 -hybridized C. It was found that a certain amount of sp 3 -hybridized C was present in the Ti-DLC films, and the D peak area was significantly larger than the G peak area (ID/IG = 2.79). This indicates that the proportion of sp 2 -hybridized C was higher than that of sp 3 -hybridized C.…”

“…AISI 316 L is widely used in medical devices such as orthodontic fixed brackets, because of its excellent machining performance, mechanical properties, corrosion resistance, and cost effectiveness [1,2]. However, when exposed to human oral saliva, AISI 316 L undergoes wear and corrosion, such as crevice corrosion, intergranular corrosion, pitting corrosion, and fretting corrosion [3].…”