scholarly journals Effectiveness of low binding frictional materials: Evaluation of the binding frictional resistance of improved superelastic nickel-titanium alloy wires with different bracket combinations

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. 156-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yoshio Shima ◽  
Akihiro Koyama ◽  
Motohiro Uo ◽  
Takashi Ono
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Titanium Alloy ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Steel Wire ◽  
Frictional Resistance ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Test Results ◽  
Tukey Test ◽  
Frictional Materials ◽  
Multibracket Appliance

Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the binding frictional resistance of improved superelastic nickel- titanium alloy wires (ISW) with different bracket combinations and to verify the effectiveness of low binding frictional materials by applying them in orthodontic treatment. Materials and Methods: Straight stainless steel wire (SSW; 0.016 × 0.022-inch) and straight ISW (0.016 × 0.022- inch) were set to each displaced bracket, and the tensile resistance load was measured. The maximum tensile resistance load was statistically compared using the Tukey test. For exemplification, we treated a typical extraction case of Angle Class I crowding malocclusion with lip protrusion using lower binding frictional materials, which were selected based on tensile test results. Results: The SSW and metal bracket combination had the largest maximum tensile resistance load, and the ISW and metal slot-equipped plastic bracket combination had the smallest load (P < 0.01). In a patient treated using lower binding frictional materials, the active treatment period was 9 months. Satisfactory patient results were obtained without using reinforced anchorage. Conclusions: Binding frictional resistance varies, depending on the archwire and bracket combination. In a multibracket appliance, selecting materials with as low a binding frictional resistance as possible may make a more effective treatment.

FRICTION OF STAINLESS STEEL, NICKEL-TITANIUM ALLOY, AND BETA-TITANIUM ALLOY ARCHWIRES IN TWO COMMONLY USED ORTHODONTIC BRACKETS

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (04) ◽  
pp. 917-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
JIAN-HONG YU ◽  
HENG-LI HUANG ◽  
LI-CHUN WU ◽  
JUI-TING HSU ◽  
YIN-YU CHANG ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Titanium Alloy ◽  
Frictional Force ◽  
Steel Wire ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
The Self ◽  
Stainless Steel Wire ◽  
Niti Wire ◽  
Beta Titanium ◽  
Frictional Forces

In orthodontic treatment, the efficiency of tooth movement is affected by the frictional force between the archwire and bracket slot. This study evaluated the static and kinetic frictional forces produced in different combinations of orthodontic archwires and brackets. Three types of archwires [stainless steel, nickel-titanium (NiTi) alloy, and beta-titanium (TMA) alloy] and two types of brackets (stainless steel and self-ligating) were tested. Both static and kinetic frictional forces of each archwire–bracket combination were measured 25 times using a custom-designed apparatus. The surface topography and hardness of the archwires were also evaluated. All data were statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test. The experiments indicated that the static frictional force was significantly higher than the kinetic frictional force in all archwire–bracket combinations not involving TMA wire. TMA wire had the highest friction, followed by NiTi wire, and then stainless steel wire when using the stainless steel bracket. However, there was no difference between NiTi and stainless steel archwires when using the self-ligating bracket. For TMA wire, the friction was higher when using the stainless steel bracket than when using the self-ligating bracket. Scanning electron microscopy indicated that stainless steel wire exhibited the smoothest surface topography. The hardness decreased in the order of stainless steel wire > TMA wire > NiTi wire. This study demonstrates that the frictional forces of brackets are influenced by different combinations of bracket and archwire. The reported data will be useful to orthodontists.

scholarly journals Clinicians' Choices in Selecting Orthodontic Archwires

2013 ◽  
Vol 59 (4) ◽  
pp. 212-218
Author(s):  
Pop Silvia-Izabella ◽  
Păcurar Mariana ◽  
Bratu Dana Cristina ◽  
Pop Rv ◽  
Chibelean Manuela
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Titanium Alloy ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Beta Titanium ◽  
Personal Opinion ◽  
Fixed Appliances ◽  
Round Section ◽  
Orthodontic Archwires ◽  
Niti Wires

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the choices made by clinicians in selecting archwires during the initial, intermediate and final stages of orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Methods: We carried out a questionnaire-based study at the Orthodontics and Pedodontics Clinic Târgu Mureș, between March 2012 and September 2012. The questionnaires consisted of two parts: the first included questions related to the dimension, alloy used in fabrication, section (round or rectangular) and manufacturer of the archwires used by the orthodontists in their orthodontic practice, the second part was concerned with their personal opinion about the physical properties and disadvantages of the archwires. Results: From a total number of 90 distributed questionnaires, 62 were returned. The majority of clinicians are using stainless steel (SS) and nickel-titanium alloy (NiTi) wires in their fixed orthodontic treatments, very few are using beta-titanium (Beta Ti), copper nickel-titanium (Co- NiTi) and esthetic archwires. The preferred dimension seem to be 0.022 inches in the appliance system. Regarding the wire dimensions, 0.014, 0.016 inch wires are mostly used from the round section group and 0.016 × 0.022 inch, 0.017 × 0.025 inch from the rectangular ones. Conclusions: There is a general lack of agreement between the clinicians surveyed regarding the properties of an ideal archwire and the disadvantages of the used wires. The most frequently used alloys seemed to be the SS and NiTi

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.

Bending Properties of General Purpose Stainless Steel Wire Formed for Orthodontic Use

2013 ◽  
Vol 746 ◽  
pp. 394-399
Author(s):  
Niwat Anuwongnukroh ◽  
Yosdhorn Chuankrerkkul ◽  
Surachai Dechkunakorn ◽  
Pornkiat Churnjitapirom ◽  
Theeralaksna Suddhasthira
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Steel Wire ◽  
General Purpose ◽  
Stainless Steel Wire ◽  
Bending Test ◽  
Bending Properties ◽  
Steel Wires ◽  
Significant Difference

The archwire is generally used in fixed appliances for orthodontic treatment to correct dental malocclusion. However, it is interesting to know whether general purpose stainless steel wire could replace commercial orthodontic archwire in orthodontic practice for economic reasons. The purpose of this study was to determine the bending properties of general purpose stainless steel wire compared with commercial orthodontic stainless steel wires after forming as an archwire for orthodontic use. The samples used in this study were 90 general purpose and 45 commercial (Highland) round stainless steel wires in 0.016, 0.018, and 0.020 sizes (30 general purpose and 15 commercial wires for each size). All 15 general purpose stainless steel wires with different sizes were formed into orthodontic archwire with a Universal Testing Machine. All samples were tested (three-point bending test) for mechanical properties. The results showed no significant difference between general purpose and commercial orthodontic wires in size 0.016 for 0.1 mm offset bending force, 0.2% yield strength, and springback. Although many mechanical properties of general purpose wires differed from commercial wires, their values conformed to other previous studies within the range of clinical acceptance. In conclusion, orthodontic formed general purpose round stainless steel wires had statistically different (p <0.05) mechanical properties from commercial orthodontic stainless steel wires (Highland) but the mechanical properties were acceptable to use in orthodontic treatment.

Comparison of Chemical Properties and Ni Release of Stainless Steel and Nickel Titanium Wires

2014 ◽  
Vol 884-885 ◽  
pp. 560-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wassana Wichai ◽  
Niwat Anuwongnukroh ◽  
Surachai Dechkunakorn
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Corrosion Resistance ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Steel Wire ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
The Other ◽  
Stainless Steel Wire ◽  
Niti Wire ◽  
Titanium Wire ◽  
Niti Wires

Objective: This study aimed to determine the composition and corrosion resistance of stainless steel and nickel titanium (NiTi) archwires and to compare Ni released from simulated standard fixed orthodontic appliances ligated with stainless steel and NiTi wires in artificial saliva at pH 5.14 and pH 6.69. in 4 weeks at 37oC. Materials and Method: Two commercial rectangular wires, 0.016 x 0.022 in size were studied, one Ormco stainless steel wire and another Ormco nickel titanium wire. Their composition was analyzed by an energy disporsive X-ray spectrometer (ESC) and their corrosion resistance was evaluated by a potentiodynamic polarization technique. For Ni release, the twenty-eight simulated fixed appliance sample sets were used, each corresponding to one half-maxillary arch. The samples were divided in 2 groups (14 sets per group). The first one was ligated to Ormco stainless steel archwires and the other one to Ormco NiTi archwires with elastomeric ligatures. Half sets of each group were immersed in 50 ml artificial saliva at pH 5.14 and the other half were immersed at pH 6.69. Ni release was quantified using flame atomic absorption spectrophotometry. Statistical analysis of variance (t-test) was determined on days 1, 4, 7, 9, 14, 21 and 28 comparing the amount of Ni released between groups. Results: Stainless steel wire was composed of Ni, Cr, Si, Mn and Fe while the nickel titanium wire was composed of Ti, Ni and Cr. NiTi wire has more percentage of Ni and therefore has less corrosion resistance than stainless steel wire. For Ni release, stainless steel and NiTi continuously increased at the time intervals for both pH levels. For group one, stainless steel wire had more Ni release at pH 5.14 and for the other group, NiTi wire had more Ni-release at pH 6.69. At 4 weeks, the Ni release of one half-maxillary arch was 1.383 ppm (1383 μg/l) at pH 5.14 and 1.079 ppm (1078 μg/l) at pH 6.69 for stainless steel wire while it was 1.221 ppm (1221 μg/l) at pH 5.14 and 1.267 ppm (1267μg/l) at pH 6.69 for NiTi wire. No significant difference was found in the amount of Ni release from stainless steel and NiTi wires at pH 5.14 and pH 6.69 in the different time intervals except on day 1 wherein the stainless steel archwire was significantly different (p<0.05) at pH 5.14 and pH 6.69. Conclusions: The NiTi wire had more Ni contain and less corrosion resistance than stainless steel wire. Stainless steel had more Ni release at pH 5.14 than pH 6.69 but NiTi had greater Ni release at pH 6.69 than pH 5.14.

scholarly journals Mechanical properties of orthodontic wires on ceramic brackets associated with low friction ligatures

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 125-130
Author(s):  
Fernando KOIKE ◽  
Hiroshi MARUO ◽  
Rogério LACERDA-SANTOS ◽  
Matheus Melo PITHON ◽  
Orlando Motohiro TANAKA
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Properties ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Mechanical Test ◽  
Steel Wire ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Bending Test ◽  
Test Machine ◽  
Orthodontic Wires ◽  
Niti Wire ◽  
Ceramic Brackets

Abstract Introduction Few studies investigated the mechanical properties of orthodontic wires on ceramic brackets associated the ligatures. Objective This study aimed to compare the load-deflection of orthodontic wires with round section of 0.016” made of stainless steel (SS), nickel-titanium (NiTi) and glass fiber-reinforced polymer composite (GFRPC). Material and method Sixty specimens obtained from 10 sectioned pre-contoured arches (TP Orthodontics), were divided into 3 groups of 20 according to each type of material (1 esthetic-type wire and 2 not esthetic) and length of 50 mm. The methodology consisted of a 3-point bending test using esthetic ceramic brackets (INVU, TP Orthodontics, Edgewise, 0.022”x 0.025”) as points of support. The tensile tests were performed on a mechanical test machine, at a speed of 10 mm/min, deflection of 1 mm, 2 mm and 3 mm. Friedman’s Non Parametric Multiple comparisons test was used (P<0.05). Result The nickel-titanium wire presented smaller load/ deflection compared with stainless steel. GFRPC wires had lower strength values among all groups evaluated (P<.05). The steel wire showed permanent deformation after 3 mm deflection, NiTi wire demonstrated memory effect and the esthetic type had fractures with loss of strength. Conclusion It can be concluded that steel wires have high strength values, requiring the incorporation of loops and folds to reduce the load / deflection. NiTi and GFRPC wires produced low levels of force, however the esthetic wire was shown to fracture and break.

scholarly journals In vitro biocompatibility of nickel-titanium esthetic orthodontic archwires

2016 ◽  
Vol 86 (5) ◽  
pp. 789-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Rongo ◽  
Rosa Valletta ◽  
Rosaria Bucci ◽  
Virginia Rivieccio ◽  
Angela Galeotti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Steel Wire ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Experimental Conditions ◽  
In Vitro Biocompatibility ◽  
Diphenyltetrazolium Bromide ◽  
Titanium Wire ◽  
Orthodontic Archwires ◽  
Niti Wires

ABSTRACT Objective:  To investigate the cytotoxicity of nickel-titanium (NiTi) esthetic orthodontic archwires with different surface coatings. Materials and Methods:  Three fully coated, tooth-colored NiTi wires (BioCosmetic, Titanol Cosmetic, EverWhite), two ion-implanted wires (TMA Purple, Sentalloy High Aesthetic), five uncoated NiTi wires (BioStarter, BioTorque, Titanol Superelastic, Memory Wire Superelastic, and Sentalloy), one β-titanium wire (TMA), and one stainless steel wire (Stainless Steel) were considered for this study. The wire samples were placed at 37°C in airtight test tubes containing Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle’s Medium (0.1 mg/mL) for 1, 7, 14, and 30 days. The cell viability of human gingival fibroblasts (HGFs) cultured with this medium was assessed by the 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assay. Data were analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance (α  =  .05). Results:  The highest cytotoxic effect was reached on day 30 for all samples. The archwires exhibited a cytotoxicity on HGFs ranging from “none” to “slight,” with the exception of the BioTorque, which resulted in moderate cytotoxicity on day 30. Significant differences were found between esthetic archwires and their uncoated pairs only for BioCosmetic (P  =  .001) and EverWhite (P &lt; .001). Conclusions:  Under the experimental conditions, all of the NiTi esthetic archwires resulted in slight cytotoxicity, as did the respective uncoated wires. For this reason their clinical use may be considered to have similar risks to the uncoated archwires.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document