Deflection and Flexural Strength Effects on the Roughness of Aesthetic-Coated Orthodontic Wires

Abstract The aim was to evaluate the flexural strength and the effects of deflection on the surface roughness of esthetic orthodontic wires. The sample consisted of 70 archwire 0.014-inch: polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE)-coated Nickel-Titanium (Niti) archwires (Titanol Cosmetic-TC, Flexy Super Elastic Esthetic-FSE, esthetic Nickel Titanium Wire-ANT); epoxy resin-coated Niti archwires (Spectra-S, Niticosmetic-TEC); gold and rhodium coated Niti (Sentalloy-STC) and a control group (superelastic Niti (Nitinol-NS). The initial roughness was evaluated with a rugosimeter. After that, the wires were submitted to flexural test in an universal testing machine. Each wire was deflected up to 2 mm at a speed of 1 mm/min. After flexural test, the roughness of the wires was evaluted on the same surface as that used for the initial evaluation. The data of roughness and flexural strength were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (a=0.05). Student t-test compared roughness before and after deflection (a =0.05). The roughness of S and ANT (epoxy resin and PTFE-coated wires, respectively), before and after deflection, was significantly higher than the other groups (p<0.05). Wire deflection significantly increased the roughness of the wires S and STC (p<0.05). The flexural strength of groups FSE and NS (PTFE and uncoated) was higher compared with that of the other groups (p<0.05). We concluded that the roughness and flexural strength of the orthodontic wires does not depend on the type of the esthetic coating, but it is influenced by the method of application of this coating. The deflection can increase the roughness of the esthetic orthodontic wires.

Resumo O objetivo foi avaliar a resistência a flexão e os efeitos da deflexão na rugosidade de superfície de fios ortodônticos estéticos. A amostra foi composta por 70 segmentos de fios NiTi calibre 0,014 polegadas: revestidos por politetrafluoretileno (PTFE) (Titanol Cosmetic-TC, Flexy Super Elastic Esthetic-FSE, Aesthetic Nickel Titanium Wire-ANT); revestidos por resina epoxídica (Spectra-S, Niticosmetic-TEC); revestidos por ouro e ródio (Sentalloy-STC); e grupo controle sem revestimento (Nitinol-NS). A rugosidade inicial foi avaliada em perfilômetro. Em seguida, os fios foram submetidos ao teste de resistência a flexão 3 pontos em máquina de ensaio universal. Cada fio foi defletido até 2mm com velocidade de 1 mm/min. Após o ensaio de resistência a flexão, a rugosidade dos fios foi verificada na mesma superfície avaliada inicialmente. Os resultados rugosidade e resistência a flexão foram analisados por análise de variância 1 fator e teste de Tukey (a=0,05). Teste t de Student foi utilizado para comparação da rugosidade antes e após deflexão (a=0.05). A rugosidade de S e ANT (revestimentos resina epoxídica e PTFE, respectivamente), antes e após a deflexão, foi significativamente maior que dos demais grupos (p<0,05). A deflexão aumentou significativamente a rugosidade dos fios S e STC (p<0,05). A resistência a flexão de FSE e NS (teflon e sem recobrimento, respectivamente) foi maior comparada aos demais grupos (p<0,05). Conclui-se que a rugosidade e resistência a flexão não dependem do tipo de revestimento estético, mas é influenciada pelo modo de aplicação deste revestimento. A deflexão pode aumentar a rugosidade de alguns fios estéticos.

Fixed appliance orthodontic treatment duration in Brunei Darussalam

Introduction: Fixed appliance orthodontic treatment (braces) is routinely used to address mal-positions of teeth and create esthetic smiles. Although it is desirable that treatment not exceed two years but, in practice, duration of up to two-and-a-half years is deemed acceptable. This review was undertaken to determine treatment duration for routine state-funded fixed appliance treatment in Brunei Darussalam and identify possible influencing factors. Materials and Methods: 100 consecutive cases (Malocclusion class I [29%], II [51%] and III [20%]) of completed routine, single-phase fixed appliance treatment treated at the National Dental Centre, Bandar Seri Begawan, selected retrospectively from 31st December 2008 were reviewed for treatment duration including possible factors affecting this parameter. Results: Only 19% had desirable treatment duration (≤2 years) and 41% had acceptable treatment duration (2.01 to 2.5 years). Forty percent had treatment duration in excess of 2.5 years. Excess time due to accumulative non-optimal visit intervals, and number of adjustment visits showed significant high correlation coefficient values to treatment duration (p<0.01). Extractions showed low but significant correlation to treatment duration while age revealed low negative correlation to treatment duration (p<0.05). The lowest incidence of repairs occurred in those whose treatment did not exceed two years whilst the highest incidence of broken appointments was observed in those who had treatment duration in excess of three years. Conclusions: This retrospective review indicates that treatment duration for most of our sample is longer than desirable. The accumulative effect of non-optimal visit intervals, increased number of adjustment visits, age at start of treatment, high proportion of extraction cases, increased incidence of repairs and broken appointments may be contributory. Further investigations including prospective studies are required.