Abstract

To compare the surface roughness of different orthodontic archwires. 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). 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. 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.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.