scholarly journals Forces in the Presence of Ceramic Versus Stainless Steel Brackets with Unconventional vs Conventional Ligatures

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 120-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiziano Baccetti ◽  
Lorenzo Franchi ◽  
Matteo Camporesi
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Tooth Movement ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Lateral Incisor ◽  
Central Incisor ◽  
Average Amount ◽  
Testing Model ◽  
Orthodontic Therapy ◽  
Titanium Wire ◽  
Ceramic Brackets

Abstract Objective: To compare the forces resulting from four types of bracket/ligature combinations: ceramic brackets and stainless steel brackets combined with unconventional elastomeric ligatures (UEL) and conventional elastomeric ligatures (CEL) during the leveling and aligning phases of orthodontic therapy. Materials and Methods: The testing model consisted of five 0.022-inch preadjusted brackets (second premolar, first premolar, canine, lateral incisor, and central incisor) for each of the two bracket types. The canine bracket was welded to a sliding bar that allowed for different amounts of offset in the gingival direction. The forces generated by a 0.014-inch superelastic nickel titanium wire in the presence of either the UEL or CEL bracket/ligature systems at different amounts of upward canine misalignment (1.5 mm, 3 mm, 4.5 mm, and 6 mm) were recorded. Results: Significant differences were found between UEL and CEL systems for all tested variables (P < .01) with the exception of the canine misalignment of 1.5 mm. The average amount of recorded force in the presence of CEL was negligible with 3.0 mm or greater of canine misalignment. On the contrary, during alignment, a force available for tooth movement was recorded in the presence of both ceramic and stainless steel brackets when associated with UEL. Conclusions: The type of ligature used influenced the actual amount of force released by the orthodontic system significantly more than the type of bracket used (stainless steel vs ceramic).

scholarly journals Comparative analysis of long-term biofilm formation on metal and ceramic brackets

2011 ◽  
Vol 81 (5) ◽  
pp. 907-914 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ira Dewi Lindel ◽  
Cornelius Elter ◽  
Wieland Heuer ◽  
Torsten Heidenblut ◽  
Meike Stiesch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Biofilm Formation ◽  
Null Hypothesis ◽  
Detection Method ◽  
Pairwise Comparison ◽  
Central Incisor ◽  
Orthodontic Therapy ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

Abstract Objective: To test the null hypothesis that stainless steel and ceramic brackets show no differences in biofilm adhesion. Materials and Methods: Twenty adolescents (6 boys, 14 girls) who had received fixed orthodontic therapy for 18.9 ± 3.2 months were divided into a metal and a ceramic bracket group. Thirty brackets per group were taken from central incisors, canines, and second premolars and quantitatively analyzed for biofilm coverage with the Rutherford backscattering detection method. Five micrographs were obtained per bracket with views from the buccal, mesial, distal, gingival, and occlusal aspects, resulting in a total of 300 images. Biofilm formation between groups was compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test (α  =  .05). Results: Total biofilm formation was 12.5% ± 5.7% (3.3 ± 1.6 mm2) of the surface on metal and 5.6% ± 2.4% (1.5 ± 0.6 mm2) on ceramic brackets. Differences between groups were statistically significant (P < .05). A pairwise comparison of biofilm formation revealed significantly lower biofilm formation on ceramic brackets with respect to intraoral location (central incisor, canine, second premolar) and bracket surface (buccal, mesial, distal). Conclusions: The hypothesis was rejected. The results indicate that ceramic brackets exhibit less long-term biofilm accumulation than metal brackets.

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.

A Study of Frictional Forces between Orthodontic Brackets and Archwires

1994 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-357 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Downing ◽  
John McCabe ◽  
Peter Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Frictional Force ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
The Other ◽  
Friction Testing ◽  
Beta Titanium ◽  
Polycrystalline Ceramic ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Frictional Forces ◽  
Testing Assembly

The differences in magnitude of static and kinetic frictional forces generated by 0·022 × 0·030-inch stainless steel (Dentaurum®) and polycrystalline ceramic (Transcend®) brackets in combinntion with archwires of different sizes (0·018 inch and 0·019 × 0·025 inch) and materials (stainless steel, nickel-titanium, and beta-titanium) at a constant ligature force were investigated. A friction-testing assembly using the Instron machine was used. In all cases, the static frictional force was greater than the kinetic frictional force. There were no significant differences in the frictional forces generated by stainless steel and polycrystalline ceramic brackets. Beta-titanium archwires produced greater frictinal forces than the other two materials. Increasing the archwire diameter increased the frictional force.

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.

scholarly journals Comparison of Galvanic Corrosion Potential of Metal Injection Molded Brackets to that of Conventional Metal Brackets with Nickel-Titanium and Copper Nickel-Titanium Archwire Combinations

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (3) ◽  
pp. 488-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
S Chidambaram ◽  
M Vijay ◽  
D Praveen Kumar Varma ◽  
K Baburam Reddy ◽  
D Ravindranath ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Corrosion Potential ◽  
Galvanic Corrosion ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Copper Nickel ◽  
Conventional Brackets ◽  
Titanium Wire ◽  
Conventional Bracket ◽  
Conventional Stainless Steel

ABSTRACT Aim The aim of the study is to investigate the galvanic corrosion potential of metal injection molding (MIM) brackets to that of conventional brackets under similar in vitro conditions with nickel-titanium and copper nickel-titanium archwires. Materials and methods Twenty-five maxillary premolar MIM stainless steel brackets and 25 conventional stainless steel brackets and archwires, 0.16 inch, each 10 mm length, 25 nickeltitanium wires, 25 copper nickel-titanium wires were used. They were divided into four groups which had five samples each. Combination of MIM bracket with copper nickel-titanium wire, MIM bracket with nickel-titanium wire and conventional stainless steel brackets with copper nickel-titanium wire and conventional stainless steel brackets with nickel-titanium wires which later were suspended in 350 ml of 1 M lactic acid solution media. Galvanic corrosion potential of four groups were analyzed under similar in vitro conditions. Precorrosion and postcorrosion elemental composition of MIM and conventional stainless steel bracket by scanning electron microscope (SEM) with energy dispersive spectroscope (EDS) was done. Results MIM bracket showed decreased corrosion susceptibility than conventional bracket with copper nickeltitanium wire. Both MIM and conventional bracket showed similar corrosion resistance potential in association with nickel-titanium archwires. It seems that both brackets are more compatible with copper nickel-titanium archwires regarding the decrease in the consequences of galvanic reaction. The EDS analysis showed that the MIM brackets with copper nickel-titanium wires released less metal ions than conventional bracket with copper nickeltitanium wires. Conclusion MIM brackets showed decreased corrosion susceptibility, copper nickel-titanium archwires are compatible with both the brackets than nickel-titanium archwires. Clinical significance Clinically MIM and conventional brackets behaved more or less similarly in terms of corrosion resistance. In order to decrease the corrosion potential of MIM brackets, more precise manufacturing technique should be improved to get a more smoother surface finish. How to cite this article Varma DPK, Chidambaram S, Reddy KB, Vijay M, Ravindranath D, Prasad MR. Comparison of Galvanic Corrosion Potential of Metal Injection Molded Brackets to that of Conventional Metal Brackets with Nickel-Titanium and Copper Nickel-Titanium Archwire Combinations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(3):488-495.

Evaluation of Different Bracket's Resistance to Torsional Forces from Archwire

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 564-567
Author(s):  
Chaitanya C Khanapure ◽  
Salika Ayesha ◽  
VJ Anil Kumar ◽  
C Deepika ◽  
Haseena Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Central Incisor ◽  
Applied Torque ◽  
Resistance To Deformation ◽  
Metal Ceramic ◽  
Torque Loss ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Bracket Failure

ABSTRACT Aim The present study was aimed to evaluate the resistance to deformation or fracture of brackets of various materials (ceramic, ceramic reinforced with metal slot, and stainless steel brackets) with archwires during application of torque. Materials and methods The sample size included 30 brackets of maxillary right central incisor with slot dimension of 0.022 × 0.028ʺ and made of three materials (10 of each type): (1) Ceramic brackets (cer), (2) ceramic brackets reinforced with stainless steel slot (cer/ss), and (3) stainless steel brackets (metal). Thirty stainless steel archwire segments of 0.019 × 0.025ʺ SS 5 cm in length were used. Elastomeric ties were also used in this study. Results Highest to lowest deformation or fracture torque found is as follows: Stainless steel brackets (5713.2 gfmm), metal ceramic reinforced with metal slot brackets (4080.8 gfmm), and ceramic brackets (3476 gfmm). Conclusion Stainless steel brackets showed significantly higher values of torsional load than ceramic brackets reinforced with metal slot and ceramic brackets. Clinical significance Clinically orthodontic treatment is based on specific force applications to the dentition, the maxilla and the mandible. In order to obtain these forces, orthodontic brackets are attached to the teeth. Most commonly used brackets are metal (stainless steel), ceramic, and combination of metal reinforced ceramic brackets. For successful orthodontic treatment, it is necessary to maintain proper torque and avoid torque loss. Torque loss leads to deepening of bite. Torque loss occurs due to many reasons, one of them being bracket failure to withstand applied torque. How to cite this article Khanapure CC, Ayesha S, Sam G, Kumar VJA, Deepika C, Ahmed H. Evaluation of Different Bracket's Resistance to Torsional Forces from Archwire. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(7):564-567.

scholarly journals Forces Produced by Different Nonconventional Bracket or Ligature Systems during Alignment of Apically Displaced Teeth

2009 ◽  
Vol 79 (3) ◽  
pp. 533-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiziano Baccetti ◽  
Lorenzo Franchi ◽  
Matteo Camporesi ◽  
Efisio Defraia ◽  
Ersilia Barbato
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Low Friction ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Conventional Brackets ◽  
Titanium Wire ◽  
Conventional Systems ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Conventional Stainless Steel ◽  
Apical Displacement

Abstract Objective: To analyze the forces released by four types of passive stainless steel self-ligating brackets (SLBs), and by two nonconventional elastomeric ligature-bracket systems when compared with conventional elastomeric ligatures on conventional stainless steel brackets during the alignment of apically displaced teeth at the maxillary arch. Materials and Methods: An experimental model consisting of five brackets was used to assess the forces released by the seven different ligature-bracket systems with 0.012″ or 0.014″ superelastic nickel titanium wire in the presence of different amounts of apical displacement of the canine (ranging from 1.5 mm to 6 mm). Comparisons between the different types of bracket/wire/ ligature systems were carried out by means of ANOVA on ranks with Dunnett's post hoc test (P &lt; .05). Results: When correction of a misalignment greater than 3 mm is attempted, a noticeable amount of force for alignment is generated by passive SLBs and nonconventional elastomeric ligature-bracket systems, and a null amount of force is released in the presence of conventional elastomeric ligatures on conventional brackets. Conclusions: When minimal apical displacement is needed (1.5 mm), the differences in performance between low-friction and conventional systems are minimal. These differences become significant when correction of a misalignment of greater than 3.0 mm is attempted.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document