Infrared spectroscopy, nano-mechanical properties, and scratch resistance of esthetic orthodontic coated archwires

A Comparative Evaluation of Surface Hardness and Nanomechanical Properties of Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Wires: An In Vitro Study

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to evaluate the influence of various surface coatings (epoxy, Teflon, and rhodium) on the surface roughness (SR) and nanomechanical characteristics of nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires. The study compared these coated archwires to uncoated ones from a single manufacturer, which served as a control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

There were 15 rectangular samples of four distinct archwires measuring 0.17 × 0.25. These were ultrasonically treated with an alkaline solution at 60°C for 15 minutes before being rinsed with distilled water to remove precipitates. With an orthodontic soft wire cutter, the straight buccal sections of coated and uncoated archwires were cut into 20 mm lengths. A three-dimensional optical noncontact surface profilometer evaluated the surface. Profilometers use contact scanning white light interferometry. Using the Vision64 software (Bruker Corporation, San Jose, CA), the profilometer's nanolens atomic force microscopy module has a completely automated turret with programmed X, Y, and Z motions. Images were taken in five random locations. Five average measurements matched specimen SR. A nanoindenter with a Berkovich diamond indenter measured nanohardness (NH) and elastic modulus (EM). The experimental results were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). To examine mean differences at 5% significance, analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test were applied for SR, NH, and EM.

RESULTS

Wires coated with epoxy had the highest SR (1.499 ± 0.082), followed by Teflon (0.811 ± 0.023) and rhodium (0.308 ± 0.024). The SR of the control group was 0.289 ± 0.027. Significant differences in SR were found (p < 0.0001). Except for the comparison between rhodium and the control group (p = 0.684), all intergroup comparisons of SR showed significant differences (p < 0.0001). The rhodium-coated wires exhibited the highest NH (0.185 ± 0.014), and the epoxy group had the lowest (0.147 ± 0.017). Variations in NH were significant between the study groups (p < 0.0001). The epoxy, Teflon, and rhodium groups showed significant differences against the control group (p < 0.0001) in intergroup comparisons for NH. The Teflon group had the highest EM (5.367 ± 0.379), and the epoxy group had the lowest (5.012 ± 0.498). The EM of the control group was 56.946 ± 0.737. Results indicate considerable EM changes between the groups (p < 0.05). Comparisons between experimental and control groups showed significant differences (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The study's findings indicate that the SR of rhodium-coated archwires is substantially comparable to that of uncoated archwires. However, Teflon-, rhodium-, and epoxy-coated archwires had significantly different NH and EM compared to uncoated ones. Further, uncoated archwires have higher NH and EM.

Comparison of surface roughness and hardness of three different brands of esthetic coated NiTi archwires: invitro study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the current in vitro study was to evaluate the surface roughness and hardness of three brands of as-received esthetic coated NiTi archwires and compare them with the same parameters after immersion in artificial saliva.

METHODS

Three groups of 0.016 × 0.022 inch epoxy-coated NiTi orthodontic wires [Tooth tone coated NiTi (Ortho Technology, West Columbia, USA), EverWhite NiTi (American Orthodontics, Wisconsin, USA) and Nitanium Super Elastic Tooth Tone Plastic coated (Ortho Organizers, San Marcos, CA, USA)] were compared. Each group was subdivided into five as-received archwire specimens and five archwire specimens retrieved following immersion in artificial saliva for 28 days. Atomic force microscopy was used for analysis of average surface roughness (Sa). Hardness testing was performed using Digital Vickers hardness tester. ANOVA and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for comparing the wire groups.

RESULTS

The ranking of (Sa) values was as follows: Nitanium Ortho Organizers > Everwhite American Orthodontics > Tooth tone Ortho Technology (P > 0.05). Nitanium Ortho Organizers archwires showed significantly greater (Sa) than both other groups following immersion in saliva (P < 0.001). The coating hardness of as-received and post-immersion archwires from Tooth tone Ortho Technology was significantly lower than the other groups (P < 0.001). For all the three types of archwires, the mean hardness of immersed wires was significantly lower than that of the as-received archwires (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Esthetic coated archwires have shown unpleasant surface changes following exposure to artificial saliva. These surface changes are affected by physical characteristics such as surface roughness and hardness of the coating.

Functional Coatings for Orthodontic Archwires-A Review

In this literature review, the current state-of-art of coatings for orthodontic archwires’ increasing antimicrobial and relevant mechanical properties, such as surface topography, friction or corrosion resistance, has been presented. There is a growing request for orthodontic appliances, therefore, most researchers focus on innovative functional coatings to cover orthodontic archwires and brackets. Orthodontic appliances are exposed to the unfavorable oral cavity environment, consisting of saliva flow, food, temperature and appliance force. As a consequence, friction or biocorrosion processes may occur. This can affect the functionality of the orthodontic elements, causing changes in their microstructure, surface topography and mechanical properties. Furthermore, the material which the orthodontic archwire is made from is of particular importance in terms of the possible corrosion resistance. This is especially important for patients who are hypersensitive to metals, for example, nickel, which causes allergic reactions. In the literature, there are some studies, carried out in vitro and in vivo, mostly examining the antibacterial, antiadherent, mechanical and roughness properties of functional coatings. They are clinically acceptable but still some properties have to be studied and be developed for better results. In this paper the influence of additives such as nanoparticles of silver and nitrogen-doped TiO₂ applied on orthodontic brackets by different methods on the antimicrobial properties was analyzed. Future improvement of coating techniques as well as modification of the archwire composition can reduce the release of nickel ions and eliminate friction and bacterial adhesion problems, thus accelerating treatment time.

Effect of gastric acids on surface topography and bending properties of esthetic coated nickel-titanium orthodontic archwires

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of simulated gastric acid solution on surface topography and bending properties of esthetic coated nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three brands of as-received white-coated superelastic NiTi upper archwires were used in this study: Dany, Perfect, and Nitanium. Uncoated metallic areas for each white-coated NiTi archwire were used for comparison with the coated areas. The specimens for each archwire were divided into two groups according to coating as follows: Group A, uncoated, and group B, coated. Then, each group was further subdivided into two subgroups according to the immersion medium as follows: Subgroup 1, immersed in artificial saliva, and subgroup 2, immersed in simulated gastric acid. Surface roughness, surface morphology, and three-point bending test were performed. The data were analyzed statistically using ANOVA and Tukey test.

RESULTS

The archwires immersed in simulated gastric acid solution showed significantly higher surface roughness and lower forces on loading and unloading than the archwires immersed in artificial saliva (P < 0.001). Perfect archwire showed significantly the highest surface roughness compared with Dany and Nitanium archwires (P < 0.001). The uncoated archwires showed higher loading and unloading forces compared with coated archwires for all groups (P < 0.001). Nitanium archwire showed the lowest loading and unloading forces at different deflections (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The simulated gastric acid solution decreased considerably the amount of force applied at a given deflection. The loading-deflection and surface roughness properties of coated archwires were affected by the type of coating material.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The impact of gastric acids on surface and mechanical properties of orthodontic archwires depend on type of coating materials.

Effects of cold chemical (glutaraldehyde) versus autoclaving sterilization on the rate of coating loss of aesthetic archwires: A double-blind randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The effect of any sterilization methods (cold chemical, or hot) on film removal from coated archwires has not yet been investigated. Thus, we assessed it.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This double-blind randomized clinical trial was performed on 120 observations: 40 macroscopically intact coated archwires from 4 brands were purchased (n=10 archwires/brand). Five wires from each brand underwent cold and 5 underwent hot sterilization. Wires were applied in 40 non-extractions patients at alignment phase of treatment (one month). Afterwards, 3 inter-bracket segments from each wire were examined microscopically, and the percentage of coating loss was recorded for each segment. Coating losses of the 4 brands and 2 sterilization methods were compared using a two-way ANOVA and a Welch t-test (α=0.05). Surfaces were also evaluated using scanning electron microscopy.

RESULTS

The mean surface coating loss of hot (autoclave) and cold (glutaraldehyde) sterilization methods was 25.6±28.7 and 28.1±30.8 percent respectively. The mean surface coating removal of the Ortho Organizers, American Orthodontics, SIA, and Gestenco brands were 24.1±28.4, 36.7±36.0, 23.0±24.4, and 23.6±28.0 percent, respectively. The two-way ANOVA indicated a lack of overall significant differences among wire brands (P=0.189) and between sterilization types (P=0.629). However, the interaction of sterilization and brands was significant (P=0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this 1-month clinical trial limited to 4 coated NiTi archwire brands only, the average coating removal of examined brands might not differ much, amounting to about 26% within a month. Glutaraldehyde and autoclave sterilization might not affect the average speed of coating loss in all brands, although each sterilization method might be favourable for certain brands.

Evaluation of Nanomechanical Properties, Surface Roughness, and Color Stability of Esthetic Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Archwires

Objectives:

The objective of the study is to evaluate the surface roughness, nanomechancial properties the color stability of three brands of coated (rhodium, epoxy, and Teflon) nickel-titanium (NiTi) esthetic archwires.

Materials and Methods:

Three brands of coated (rhodium, epoxy, and Teflon) esthetic NiTi archwires and three brands of uncoated (NiTi) archwires from the same manufactures were evaluated for the surface roughness, nanomechanical properties, and color stability. The specimens with 20 mm length (n = 5) were cut from the straight buccal segments of the coated and uncoated archwires. The specimens with 20 mm length (n = 10) were subjected to color measurement after immersion in a coffee staining solution. The color measurement was evaluated after 7, 14, 21, and 28 days after immersion in staining solution using color eye 7000 spectrophotometer. The experimental data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, analyses of variance, and Tukey's post hoc test.

Results:

Epoxy (1.517 ± 0.071) and rhodium (0.297 ± 0.015) coated archwires showed the highest and lower value of surface roughness. All the intergroup comparisons showed a significant difference (P < 0.05) in surface roughness except between rhodium and control group (P = 0.998). There were significant differences between control and the experimental groups for both nanohardness and elastic modulus was observed. All the three NiTi-coated esthetic archwires demonstrated trace” (extremely slight change) color changes as measured by the National Bureau of Standards units after 4 weeks of immersion.

Conclusion:

Surface roughness of rhodium-coated archwires was almost similar to that of uncoated wires. Whereas Teflon and epoxy coated archwires showed a significant difference in surface roughness compared to uncoated archwires. Uncoated archwires showed higher nanohardness values compared to the coated archwires. Teflon-coated archwires demonstrated significantly slight color change after 4 weeks of immersion in staining solution.

Surface topography of plain nickel-titanium (NiTi), as-received aesthetic (coated) NiTi, and aesthetic NiTi archwires sterilized by autoclaving or glutaraldehyde immersion: A profilometry/SEM/AFM study

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Surface topography is a crucial factor in bracket sliding mechanics. Literature on surface roughness of aesthetic archwires is scarce, and there is no study on surface topography of such archwires affected by any sterilization methods. The aim of this study was to compare the surface topography of plain nickel-titanium (NiTi) versus as-received aesthetic coated NiTi wires versus aesthetic wires sterilized by autoclaving or glutaraldehyde immersion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This in vitro study was performed on 80 atomic force microscopy (AFM) observations, 160 profilometry observations, and 40 scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images from rectangular wires of the brands 'American Orthodontics, Ortho Organizers, SIA, and Gestenco'. AFM consisted of 8 subgroups of NiTi orthodontic wires, consisting of 4 subgroups of 4 brands of coated orthodontic wires and 4 subgroups of 4 brands of uncoated wires from the same brands. Profilometry consisted of 16 subgroups of NiTi orthodontic wires, consisting of 4 subgroups of 4 brands of coated orthodontic wires and 12 subgroups of 4 brands of uncoated wires from the same brands (4 as-received wire subgroups, 4 autoclaved, and 4 cold-sterilized subgroups). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and AFM images were subjectively evaluated. AFM and profilometry data were analysed statistically (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Overall, the difference between surface roughness parameters of coated versus uncoated archwires was not significant (P>0.05). However, surface roughness of brands differed significantly. Mann-Whitney did not show any significant differences between sterilized wires (both sterilization methods together as one group) and unsterilized wires (both unsterilized coated and uncoated as one group) (P>0.460). After excluding plain uncoated NiTi group, the coated wires in 3 sterilization groups (no sterilization, autoclaving, glutaraldehyde) were not significantly different in terms of average overall surface roughness (Ra) and maximum roughness depths (Rq) of different sterilization groups (P>0.1) but the average maximum peak to valley heights (Rz) values of 3 sterilization groups were significantly different (P=0.0415). Dunn test showed that among three post-hoc pairwise comparisons of Rz values, only the comparison of "no sterilization versus autoclaving" was significant (P<0.05) and the other two were non-significant.

CONCLUSION

Coating might not affect the surface roughness considerably. Brands have different surface roughnesses. Autoclaving but not cold sterilization might affect the surface roughness of coated archwires.

Effects of autoclaving versus cold chemical (glutaraldehyde) sterilization on load-deflection characteristics of aesthetic coated archwires

INTRODUCTION

The effect of any sterilization methods (cold [chemical] or hot) on load-deflection characteristics of aesthetic coated archwires has not yet been investigated. Thus, we assessed it.

METHODS

In this experimental in vitro study, 90-coated archwires from 3 brands were purchased. Ten wires from each brand (n=30) underwent cold and 10 underwent hot sterilization, while 10 left unsterilized as negative controls. Load-deflection curves were established for each wire (as five 0.2mm intervals between 1.0 and 1.8mm displacements), using a three-bracket test. After determining the plateau phase that was present in all wires, the averages of plateau phase pertaining to loading and unloading curves and their discrepancies (hysteresis) were calculated for each subgroup (n=10). Average plateau values were compared using two-way ANOVA, Tukey, and independent-samples t-test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

Average loading and unloading values were 906.6±129.7 and 295.9±84.5g respectively (t-test P<0.0001). Comparing loading plateaus, ANOVA indicated significant difference among wire brands (P<0.0001) but not among sterilization types (P=0.4793). Comparing unloading plateaus, ANOVA showed significant differences among wire brands (P<0.0001) and sterilization types (P=0.0008). Tukey showed that only cold sterilization and negative control differed significantly (P<0.001); cold and hot sterilization methods, or control and autoclaving were not significantly different (P>0.05). Comparing hysteresis plateaus, ANOVA indicated difference among wire brands (P<0.0053) but not among sterilization types (P=0.9166).

CONCLUSIONS

Cold sterilization might reduce unloading plateau of orthodontic wires, but sterilization in general might not affect loading or hysteresis plateaus. Different brands had different plateaus of loading, unloading and hysteresis.

Characterization of the coatings covering esthetic orthodontic archwires and their influence on the bending and frictional properties

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the coatings covering esthetic orthodontic wires and the influence of such coatings on bending and frictional properties.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four commercially available, coated esthetic archwires were evaluated for their cross-sectional dimensions, surface roughness (R_a), nanomechanical properties (nanohardness, nanoelastic modulus), three-point bending, and static frictional force. Matched, noncoated control wires were also assessed.

RESULTS

One of the coated wires had a similar inner core dimension and elasticity compared to the noncoated control wire, and no significant differences between their static frictional forces were observed. The other coated wires had significantly smaller inner cores and lower elasticity compared to the noncoated wires, and one of them showed less static frictional force than the noncoated wire, while the other two coated wires had greater static frictional force compared to their noncoated controls. The dimension and elastic modulus of the inner cores were positively correlated (r = 0.640), as were frictional force and total cross-sectional (r = 0.761) or inner core (r = 0.709) dimension, elastic modulus (r = 0.777), nanohardness (r = 0.802), and nanoelastic modulus (r = 0.926). The external surfaces of the coated wires were rougher than those of their matched controls, and the R_a and frictional force were negatively correlated (r = -0.333).

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic coated wires with small inner alloy cores withstand less force than expected and may be unsuitable for establishing sufficient tooth movement. The frictional force of coated wires is influenced by total cross-section diameter, inner core diameter, nanohardness, nanoelastic modulus, and elastic modulus.