Hosseinagha Aghili1, Soghra Yassaei2, Neda Joshan3, Nemat Hoseini4. 1. Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences , Yazd, Iran . 2. Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences , Yazd, Iran . 3. Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences , Yazd, Iran . 4. Orthodontics Resident, Department of Orthodontics, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences , Yazd, Iran .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Coated arch wires and ceramic brackets have been introduced to improve aesthetics during orthodontic treatment. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of coating on the physical properties of aesthetic orthodontic wires. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five round wires (0.016 inch) were obtained from each of three brands: conventional uncoated super elastic Nickel Titanium (Ni-Ti) (Rematitian Lite; Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), HUBIT (Teflon Coated, Korea), G&H (Epoxy Coated, Greenwood, Indiana, USA) which belonged to maxillary arch. Two types of standard ceramic brackets (conventional and metal-insert type, Ortho Technology, Tampa, Florida, USA) with the slot size of 0.022×0.028 inches were used. A simulation device was fabricated to resemble a model of human dental arch and each of the specimen was tested in three-point bending test. The test was conducted in the buccolingual plane with crosshead speed of 1mm/minute pressure from metal pole. Each sample was loaded until a deflection of 3.0 mm was produced. The mean values of maximum loading force, unloading force and clinical plateau length were recorded. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used at p<0.05. RESULTS: Uncoated Ni-Ti arch wire showed higher mean values of maximum loading and unloading force than that of coated aesthetic wires similar to ceramic brackets while G&H wire and metal-insert ceramic brackets presented the lowest values. The longest clinical plateau length was observed in G&H wires and metal-insert ceramic bracket. CONCLUSION: The coating processes for HUBIT (Teflon Coated, Korea), G&H (Epoxy Coated, Greenwood, Indiana, USA) wires might influence bending behaviour which can cause decrease in loading and unloading force.
INTRODUCTION: Coated arch wires and ceramic brackets have been introduced to improve aesthetics during orthodontic treatment. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the effects of coating on the physical properties of aesthetic orthodontic wires. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Five round wires (0.016 inch) were obtained from each of three brands: conventional uncoated super elastic Nickel Titanium (Ni-Ti) (Rematitian Lite; Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), HUBIT (Teflon Coated, Korea), G&H (Epoxy Coated, Greenwood, Indiana, USA) which belonged to maxillary arch. Two types of standard ceramic brackets (conventional and metal-insert type, Ortho Technology, Tampa, Florida, USA) with the slot size of 0.022×0.028 inches were used. A simulation device was fabricated to resemble a model of human dental arch and each of the specimen was tested in three-point bending test. The test was conducted in the buccolingual plane with crosshead speed of 1mm/minute pressure from metal pole. Each sample was loaded until a deflection of 3.0 mm was produced. The mean values of maximum loading force, unloading force and clinical plateau length were recorded. One-way ANOVA and Tukey tests were used at p<0.05. RESULTS: Uncoated Ni-Ti arch wire showed higher mean values of maximum loading and unloading force than that of coated aesthetic wires similar to ceramic brackets while G&H wire and metal-insert ceramic brackets presented the lowest values. The longest clinical plateau length was observed in G&H wires and metal-insert ceramic bracket. CONCLUSION: The coating processes for HUBIT (Teflon Coated, Korea), G&H (Epoxy Coated, Greenwood, Indiana, USA) wires might influence bending behaviour which can cause decrease in loading and unloading force.
Authors: Peter D Wilkinson; Peter S Dysart; James A A Hood; G Peter Herbison Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 2.650