Antimicrobial effect, frictional resistance, and surface roughness of stainless steel orthodontic brackets coated with nanofilms of silver and titanium oxide: a preliminary study

2017 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 599-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Ghasemi ◽  
Valiollah Arash ◽  
Sayed Mahmood Rabiee ◽  
Ramazan Rajabnia ◽  
Amirhosein Pourzare ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Titanium Oxide ◽  
Frictional Resistance ◽  
Antimicrobial Effect ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Preliminary Study

scholarly journals Surface roughness of three types of modern plastic bracket slot floors and frictional resistance

2013 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sung-Hwan Choi ◽  
Da-Young Kang ◽  
Chung–Ju Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Frictional Resistance ◽  
Lower Surface ◽  
Reinforced Plastic ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Sliding Test ◽  
Plastic Brackets

ABSTRACT Objective: To quantitatively analyze the surface roughness of the slot floors of three types of modern plastic brackets and to measure static frictional force during sliding mechanics in vitro. Materials and Methods: Control groups comprised stainless steel brackets and monocrystalline ceramic brackets. Test groups comprised three types of 0.022-in slot, Roth prescription, plastic, maxillary right central incisor brackets. Test groups included glass fiber-reinforced polycarbonate, filler-reinforced polycarbonate, and hybrid polymer with inserted metal slot brackets. The static frictional resistance caused by sliding movements with an archwire (stainless steel) in vitro was quantitatively analyzed. Both scanning electron microscope and three-dimensional optical surface profiling were used. Results: Scanning electron microscope and three-dimensional optical surface profiler revealed that all as-received brackets had irregular slot floor surfaces, and both irregularity and roughness increased after the archwire sliding test. The ceramic brackets in the control group showed significantly lower surface roughness values and higher frictional values during the archwire sliding test compared with the other brackets. The glass or filler-reinforced plastic brackets exhibited significantly higher static frictional values than the metallic slot type brackets (P < .001). The hybrid polymer with inserted metal slot brackets showed relatively lower surface roughness and frictional values compared with the stainless steel control bracket. Conclusion: Glass or filler-reinforced plastic brackets showed higher frictional resistance than metallic slot–type brackets. A plastic bracket with inserted metal slot may be the best choice among plastic brackets for low frictional resistance and to avoid damage from sliding movements of the archwire.

Frictional resistance of ceramic and stainless steel orthodontic brackets

1990 ◽  
Vol 98 (5) ◽  
pp. 398-403 ◽  
Author(s):  
Don H. Pratten ◽  
Kris Popli ◽  
Nicholas Germane ◽  
John C. Gunsolley
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Frictional Resistance ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets

scholarly journals Frictional Resistance between Orthodontic Brackets and Archwire: An in vitro Study

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 91-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avinash Kumar ◽  
Nadeem Husain
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Frictional Force ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Steel Wire ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Frictional Resistance ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Wet Condition

ABSTRACT Aim The purpose of this investigation was to determine the kinetic frictional resistance offered by stainless steel and Titanium bracket used in combination with rectangular stainless steel wire during in vitro translatory displacement of brackets. Materials and methods In this study. Brackets: (All brackets used had a torque of – 7° and an angulation of 0°): (1) Dynalock (Unitek) 0.018” slot, 3.3 mm bracket width, (2) Mini Uni-Twin (Unitek) 0.018” slot, 1.6 mm bracket width, (3) Ultra-Minitrim (Dentaurum) 0.022” slot 3.3 mm bracket width, (4) Titanium (Dentaurum) 0.022” slot, 3.3 mm bracket width. WIRES: (1) 0.016 × 0.022” stainless steel (Dentaurum), (2) 0.017 × 0.025’'stainless steel (Unitek), (3) 0.018 × 0.025” stainless steel (Dentaurum), elastomeric modules (Ortho Organisers), 0. 009” stainless steel ligature wires, hooks made of 0.021 × 0.025” stainless steel wires, super glue to bond the hooks to the base of the bracket, acetone to condition the bracket and wires before testing and artificial saliva. Brackets were moved along the wire by means of an Instron universal testing machine (1101) and forces were measured by a load cell. All values were recorded in Newtons and then converted into gms (1N-102 gm). 200 gm was then subtracted from these values to find out the frictional force for each archwire/bracket combination. For each archwire/ bracket combination three readings were taken under wet and dry condition and also with stainless steel ligature and elastomeric modules separately. Results The results showed that narrow brackets generated more friction than wider brackets. Frictional force was directly proportional to wire dimension. Titanium brackets generated more friction than stainless steel brackets. Archwire and bracket ligated with elastomeric module generated more friction than when ligated with stainless steel ligature wire. Frictional forces in the wet condition were greater than in the dry condition for all archwire to bracket combinations. Conclusion Frictional force was seen to be inversely proportional to bracket width, frictional force was inversely proportional to bracket width, and in the wet condition were greater than in the dry condition for all archwire to bracket combinations. Clinical significance This study of friction is its role in lessening the force actually received by a tooth from an active component such as a spring, loop or elastic. Hence greater applied force is needed to move a tooth with a bracket archwire combination demonstrating high magnitudes of friction compared with one with a low frictional value. How to cite this article Husain N, Kumar A. Frictional Resistance between Orthodontic Brackets and Archwire: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(2):91-99.

Studying The Effect of a New Mixed Cutting Fluid on Surface Roughness

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (11A) ◽  
pp. 1593-1601
Author(s):  
Mohammed H. Shaker ◽  
Salah K. Jawad ◽  
Maan A. Tawfiq
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Cutting Parameters ◽  
Machining Process ◽  
Cutting Fluid ◽  
Depth Of Cut ◽  
Cutting Fluids ◽  
Machining Processes ◽  
Dry Cutting ◽  
Cutting Speeds

This research studied the influence of cutting fluids and cutting parameters on the surface roughness for stainless steel worked by turning machine in dry and wet cutting cases. The work was done with different cutting speeds, and feed rates with a fixed depth of cutting. During the machining process, heat was generated and effects of higher surface roughness of work material. In this study, the effects of some cutting fluids, and dry cutting on surface roughness have been examined in turning of AISI316 stainless steel material. Sodium Lauryl Ether Sulfate (SLES) instead of other soluble oils has been used and compared to dry machining processes. Experiments have been performed at four cutting speeds (60, 95, 155, 240) m/min, feed rates (0.065, 0.08, 0.096, 0.114) mm/rev. and constant depth of cut (0.5) mm. The amount of decrease in Ra after the used suggested mixture arrived at (0.21µm), while Ra exceeded (1µm) in case of soluble oils This means the suggested mixture gave the best results of lubricating properties than other cases.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Frictional forces between different Archwire-bracket Combinations

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinit Singh ◽  
Swati Acharya ◽  
Satyabrata Patnaik ◽  
Smruti Bhusan Nanda
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Tooth Movement ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Frictional Resistance ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Beta Titanium ◽  
Frictional Forces

Introduction: During sliding mechanics, frictional resistance is an important counterforce to orthodontic tooth movement; whichmust be controlled to allow application of light continuous forces.Objective: To investigate static and kinetic frictional resistance between three orthodontic brackets: ceramic, self-ligating, andstainless steel, and three 0.019×0.025” archwires: stainless steel, nickel-titanium, titanium-molybdenum.Materials & Method: The in vitro study compared the effects of stainless steel, nickel-titanium, and beta-titanium archwires onfrictional forces of three orthodontic bracket systems: ceramic, self-ligating, and stainless steel brackets. All brackets had 0.022”slots, and the wires were 0.019×0.025”. Friction was evaluated in a simulated half-arch fixed appliance on a testing machine. Thestatic and kinetic friction data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Duncan multiple rangetest.Result: Self-ligating (Damon) brackets generated significantly lower static and kinetic frictional forces than stainless steel (Gemini)and ceramic brackets (Clarity). Among the archwire materials, Beta-titanium showed the maximum amount of frictional forceand stainless steel archwires had the lowest frictional force.Conclusion: The static and kinetic frictional force for stainless steel bracket was lowest in every combination of wire.

scholarly journals Post-Processing and Surface Characterization of Additively Manufactured Stainless Steel 316L Lattice: Implications for BioMedical Use

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1376
Author(s):  
Alex Quok An Teo ◽  
Lina Yan ◽  
Akshay Chaudhari ◽  
Gavin Kane O’Neill
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Surface Characterization ◽  
High Surface ◽  
Surface Characteristics ◽  
Post Processing ◽  
Stainless Steel 316L ◽  
Processing Methods ◽  
Particulate Debris

Additive manufacturing of stainless steel is becoming increasingly accessible, allowing for the customisation of structure and surface characteristics; there is little guidance for the post-processing of these metals. We carried out this study to ascertain the effects of various combinations of post-processing methods on the surface of an additively manufactured stainless steel 316L lattice. We also characterized the nature of residual surface particles found after these processes via energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Finally, we measured the surface roughness of the post-processing lattices via digital microscopy. The native lattices had a predictably high surface roughness from partially molten particles. Sandblasting effectively removed this but damaged the surface, introducing a peel-off layer, as well as leaving surface residue from the glass beads used. The addition of either abrasive polishing or electropolishing removed the peel-off layer but introduced other surface deficiencies making it more susceptible to corrosion. Finally, when electropolishing was performed after the above processes, there was a significant reduction in residual surface particles. The constitution of the particulate debris as well as the lattice surface roughness following each post-processing method varied, with potential implications for clinical use. The work provides a good base for future development of post-processing methods for additively manufactured stainless steel.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document