Literature DB >> 15947222

A stainless steel bracket for orthodontic application.

Keun-Taek Oh1, Sung-Uk Choo, Kwang-Mahn Kim, Kyoung-Nam Kim.   

Abstract

Aesthetics has become an essential element when choosing orthodontic fixed appliances. Most metallic brackets used in orthodontic therapy are made from stainless steel (SS) with the appropriate physical properties and good corrosion resistance, and are available as types 304, 316 and 17-4 PH SS. However, localized corrosion of these materials can frequently occur in the oral environment. This study was undertaken to evaluate the accuracy of sizing, microstructure, hardness, corrosion resistance, frictional resistance and cytotoxicity of commercially available Mini-diamond (S17400), Archist (S30403) and experimentally manufactured SR-50A (S32050) brackets. The size accuracy of Mini-diamond was the highest at all locations except for the external horizontal width of the tie wing (P < 0.05). Micrographs of the Mini-diamond and Archist showed precipitates in the grains and around their boundaries. SR-50A showed the only austenitic phase and the highest polarization resistance of the tested samples. SR-50A also had the highest corrosion resistance [SR-50A, Mini-diamond and Archist were 0.9 x 10(-3), 3.7 x 10(-3), and 7.4 x 10(-3) mm per year (mpy), respectively], in the artificial saliva. The frictional force of SR-50A decreased over time, but that of Mini-diamond and Archist increased. Therefore, SR-50A is believed to have better frictional properties to orthodontic wire than Mini-diamond and Archist. Cytotoxic results showed that the response index of SR-50A was 0/1 (mild), Mini-diamond 1/1 (mild+), and Archist 1/2 (mild+). SR-50A showed greater biocompatibility than either Mini-diamond or Archist. It is concluded that the SR-50A bracket has good frictional property, corrosion resistance and biocompatibility with a lower probability of allergic reaction, compared with conventionally used SS brackets.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15947222     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  6 in total

1.  Assessment of the hardness of different orthodontic wires and brackets produced by metal injection molding and conventional methods.

Authors:  Shiva Alavi; Marzie Kachuie
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2017 Jul-Aug

Review 2.  Orthodontic brackets friction changes after clinical use: A systematic review.

Authors:  Sérgio-Elias-Neves Cury; Aron Aliaga-Del Castillo; Arnaldo Pinzan; Karine-Laskos Sakoda; Silvio-Augusto Bellini-Pereira; Guilherme Janson
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2019-05-01

3.  A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study.

Authors:  Tomasz Ogiński; Beata Kawala; Marcin Mikulewicz; Joanna Antoszewska-Smith
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 4.  Nanomaterials Application in Orthodontics.

Authors:  Wojciech Zakrzewski; Maciej Dobrzynski; Wojciech Dobrzynski; Anna Zawadzka-Knefel; Mateusz Janecki; Karolina Kurek; Adam Lubojanski; Maria Szymonowicz; Zbigniew Rybak; Rafal J Wiglusz
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 5.076

5.  In vitro physical, chemical, and biological evaluation of commercially available metal orthodontic brackets.

Authors:  Joo Hyoung Kim; Jung Yul Cha; Chung Ju Hwang
Journal:  Korean J Orthod       Date:  2012-12-28       Impact factor: 1.372

6.  Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with halogen and plasma arc light curing.

Authors:  Mohammad Hossein Toodehzaeim; Alireza Danesh Kazemi; Hossein Agha Aghili; Kazem Barzegar; Taranom Fallahtafti
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2012-05
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.