European Journal of Orthodontics, 2015, 49–55 doi:10.1093/ejo/cju004 Advance Access publication 1 August 2014
Original article
A comparison of roughness parameters and friction coefficients of aesthetic archwires Philippa Rudge*, Martyn Sherriff** and Dirk Bister* *Department of Orthodontics, Guy’s Hospital, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, **School of Oral and Dental Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Correspondence to: Dirk Bister, Department of Orthodontics, Floor 22, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Summary
Introduction An expanding inventory of archwires has added versatility to orthodontic treatment (1) and potential advantages to appropriate archwire selection include provision of efficient and predictable treatment results, with minimal patient discomfort (1). In order to predict clinical outcome, archwire alloys are characterized (2) in vitro and while laboratory tests do not necessarily reflect clinical situations, they do provide a basis for comparison of wires (1). Roughness is a measure of texture of a surface and influences how an object will interact with its environment (3). It can
Downloaded from by guest on January 26, 2015
Aim: Compare surface roughness of ‘aesthetic’ nickel–titanium (NiTi) archwires with their dynamic frictional properties. Methods: Archwires investigated were: four fully coated tooth coloured [Forestadent: Biocosmetic (FB) and Titanol Cosmetic (FT); TOC Tooth Tone (TT); and Hawley Russell Coated Superelastic NiTi (HRC)]; two partially coated tooth coloured [DB Euroline Microcoated (DB) and TP Aesthetic NiTi (TP)]; two rhodium coated [TOC Sentalloy (TS) and Hawley Russell Rhodium Coated Superelastic NiTi (HRR)]; and two controls: stainless steel [Forestadent Steel (FS)] and NiTi archwire [Forestadent Titanol Superelastic (FN)]. Surface roughness [profilometry (Rugosurf)] was compared with frictional coefficients for archwire/bracket/ligature combinations (n = 10). Analysis of variance, Sidak’s multiple comparison of means, and Spearman’s correlation coefficient were used for analysis. Results: Roughness coefficients were from low to high: FB; FN; TT; FS; TS; HRR; FT; DB; TP; HRC. Friction coefficients were from low to high: TP; FS; FN; HRR; FT; DB; FB; HRC; TS; TT. Coated archwires generally exhibited higher friction than uncoated controls. TP had the lowest friction but this was not statistically significant (P
Original article
A comparison of roughness parameters and friction coefficients of aesthetic archwires Philippa Rudge*, Martyn Sherriff** and Dirk Bister* *Department of Orthodontics, Guy’s Hospital, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London, **School of Oral and Dental Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK Correspondence to: Dirk Bister, Department of Orthodontics, Floor 22, Guy’s Hospital, Great Maze Pond, London SE1 9RT, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Summary
Introduction An expanding inventory of archwires has added versatility to orthodontic treatment (1) and potential advantages to appropriate archwire selection include provision of efficient and predictable treatment results, with minimal patient discomfort (1). In order to predict clinical outcome, archwire alloys are characterized (2) in vitro and while laboratory tests do not necessarily reflect clinical situations, they do provide a basis for comparison of wires (1). Roughness is a measure of texture of a surface and influences how an object will interact with its environment (3). It can
Downloaded from by guest on January 26, 2015
Aim: Compare surface roughness of ‘aesthetic’ nickel–titanium (NiTi) archwires with their dynamic frictional properties. Methods: Archwires investigated were: four fully coated tooth coloured [Forestadent: Biocosmetic (FB) and Titanol Cosmetic (FT); TOC Tooth Tone (TT); and Hawley Russell Coated Superelastic NiTi (HRC)]; two partially coated tooth coloured [DB Euroline Microcoated (DB) and TP Aesthetic NiTi (TP)]; two rhodium coated [TOC Sentalloy (TS) and Hawley Russell Rhodium Coated Superelastic NiTi (HRR)]; and two controls: stainless steel [Forestadent Steel (FS)] and NiTi archwire [Forestadent Titanol Superelastic (FN)]. Surface roughness [profilometry (Rugosurf)] was compared with frictional coefficients for archwire/bracket/ligature combinations (n = 10). Analysis of variance, Sidak’s multiple comparison of means, and Spearman’s correlation coefficient were used for analysis. Results: Roughness coefficients were from low to high: FB; FN; TT; FS; TS; HRR; FT; DB; TP; HRC. Friction coefficients were from low to high: TP; FS; FN; HRR; FT; DB; FB; HRC; TS; TT. Coated archwires generally exhibited higher friction than uncoated controls. TP had the lowest friction but this was not statistically significant (P
