OBJECTIVE: To compare the surface roughness of different orthodontic archwires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four nickel-titanium wires (Sentalloy(®), Sentalloy(®) High Aesthetic, Titanium Memory ThermaTi Lite(®), and Titanium Memory Esthetic(®)), three β-titanium wires (TMA(®), Colored TMA(®), and Beta Titanium(®)), and one stainless-steel wire (Stainless Steel(®)) were considered for this study. Three samples for each wire were analyzed by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Three-dimensional images were processed using Gwiddion software, and the roughness average (Ra), the root mean square (Rms), and the maximum height (Mh) values of the scanned surface profile were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post hoc test (P < .05). RESULTS: The Ra, Rms, and Mh values were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Among as-received archwires, the Stainless Steel (Ra = 36.6 ± 5.8; Rms = 48 ± 7.7; Mh = 328.1 ± 64) archwire was less rough than the others (ANOVA, P < .05). The Sentalloy High Aesthetic was the roughest (Ra = 133.5 ± 10.8; Rms = 165.8 ± 9.8; Mh = 949.6 ± 192.1) of the archwires. CONCLUSIONS: The surface quality of the wires investigated differed significantly. Ion implantation effectively reduced the roughness of TMA. Moreover, Teflon(®)-coated Titanium Memory Esthetic was less rough than was ion-implanted Sentalloy High Aesthetic.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the surface roughness of different orthodontic archwires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four nickel-titanium wires (Sentalloy(®), Sentalloy(®) High Aesthetic, Titanium Memory ThermaTi Lite(®), and Titanium Memory Esthetic(®)), three β-titanium wires (TMA(®), Colored TMA(®), and Beta Titanium(®)), and one stainless-steel wire (Stainless Steel(®)) were considered for this study. Three samples for each wire were analyzed by atomic force microscopy (AFM). Three-dimensional images were processed using Gwiddion software, and the roughness average (Ra), the root mean square (Rms), and the maximum height (Mh) values of the scanned surface profile were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post hoc test (P < .05). RESULTS: The Ra, Rms, and Mh values were expressed as the mean ± standard deviation. Among as-received archwires, the Stainless Steel (Ra = 36.6 ± 5.8; Rms = 48 ± 7.7; Mh = 328.1 ± 64) archwire was less rough than the others (ANOVA, P < .05). The Sentalloy High Aesthetic was the roughest (Ra = 133.5 ± 10.8; Rms = 165.8 ± 9.8; Mh = 949.6 ± 192.1) of the archwires. CONCLUSIONS: The surface quality of the wires investigated differed significantly. Ion implantation effectively reduced the roughness of TMA. Moreover, Teflon(®)-coated Titanium Memory Esthetic was less rough than was ion-implanted Sentalloy High Aesthetic.
Authors: Abdul Razzak A Ghazal; Mohammad Y Hajeer; Rabab Al-Sabbagh; Ibrahim Alghoraibi; Ahmad Aldiry Journal: Prog Orthod Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 2.750