Manu Krishnan1, Saraswathy Seema2, Brijesh Tiwari3, Himanshu S Sharma4, Sanjay Londhe5, Vimal Arora6. 1. Classified Specialist (Orthodontics), Dept of Dental Research & Implantology, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences (INMAS), Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), Timarpur, Delhi 1100054, India. 2. Research Scholar, School of Medicine and Paramedical Health Sciences, Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University, Delhi Cantt, India. 3. Senior Research Fellow (Project), Dept of Dental Research & Implantology, Institute of Nuclear Medicine and Allied Sciences (INMAS), Defence Research and Development Organization (DRDO), Timarpur, Delhi, India. 4. Commanding Officer, Military Dental Centre, Delhi Cantt, India. 5. Addl Director General Dental Services, IHQ of MoD (Army), New Delhi 110001, India. 6. Director General Dental Services & Colonel Commandant, O/o DGDS, Adjutant General's Branch, IHQ of MoD, L Block, New Delhi 110001, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surface roughness of nickel titanium orthodontic arch wires poses several clinical challenges. Surface modification with aesthetic/metallic/non metallic materials is therefore a recent innovation, with clinical efficacy yet to be comprehensively evaluated. METHODS: One conventional and five types of surface modified nickel titanium arch wires were surface characterized with scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive analysis, Raman spectroscopy, Atomic force microscopy and 3D profilometry. Root mean square roughness values were analyzed by one way analysis of variance and post hoc Duncan's multiple range tests. RESULTS: Study groups demonstrated considerable reduction in roughness values from conventional in a material specific pattern: Group I; conventional (578.56 nm) > Group V; Teflon (365.33 nm) > Group III; nitride (301.51 nm) > Group VI (i); rhodium (290.64 nm) > Group VI (ii); silver (252.22 nm) > Group IV; titanium (229.51 nm) > Group II; resin (158.60 nm). It also showed the defects with aesthetic (resin/Teflon) and nitride surfaces and smooth topography achieved with metals; titanium/silver/rhodium. CONCLUSIONS: Resin, Teflon, titanium, silver, rhodium and nitrides were effective in decreasing surface roughness of nickel titanium arch wires albeit; certain flaws. Findings have clinical implications, considering their potential in lessening biofilm adhesion, reducing friction, improving corrosion resistance and preventing nickel leach and allergic reactions.
BACKGROUND: Surface roughness of nickel titanium orthodontic arch wires poses several clinical challenges. Surface modification with aesthetic/metallic/non metallic materials is therefore a recent innovation, with clinical efficacy yet to be comprehensively evaluated. METHODS: One conventional and five types of surface modified nickel titanium arch wires were surface characterized with scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive analysis, Raman spectroscopy, Atomic force microscopy and 3D profilometry. Root mean square roughness values were analyzed by one way analysis of variance and post hoc Duncan's multiple range tests. RESULTS: Study groups demonstrated considerable reduction in roughness values from conventional in a material specific pattern: Group I; conventional (578.56 nm) > Group V; Teflon (365.33 nm) > Group III; nitride (301.51 nm) > Group VI (i); rhodium (290.64 nm) > Group VI (ii); silver (252.22 nm) > Group IV; titanium (229.51 nm) > Group II; resin (158.60 nm). It also showed the defects with aesthetic (resin/Teflon) and nitride surfaces and smooth topography achieved with metals; titanium/silver/rhodium. CONCLUSIONS: Resin, Teflon, titanium, silver, rhodium and nitrides were effective in decreasing surface roughness of nickel titanium arch wires albeit; certain flaws. Findings have clinical implications, considering their potential in lessening biofilm adhesion, reducing friction, improving corrosion resistance and preventing nickel leach and allergic reactions.
Entities:
Keywords:
3D profilometry; Atomic force microscopy; Nickel titanium arch wire; Raman spectroscopy; Root mean square roughness; Scanning electron microscopy
Authors: Kate House; Friedrich Sernetz; David Dymock; Jonathan R Sandy; Anthony J Ireland Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: T Sawase; A Wennerberg; K Baba; Y Tsuboi; L Sennerby; C B Johansson; T Albrektsson Journal: Clin Implant Dent Relat Res Date: 2001 Impact factor: 3.932
Authors: Rajesh Kumar Reddy; Pavan K Katari; Tarun T Bypureddy; Venkata Naga Sri Harsha Anumolu; Yenugupalli Kartheek; Nemala R V Sairam Journal: J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Date: 2016-10-24