ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Arch wire surface characteristics, especially surface roughness and topography, influence the coefficient of friction during sliding. The clinician should be familiar with the properties of orthodontic appliances and materials that could result in high friction to maximize the efficiency of treatment. This study aimed to compare the static friction of orthodontic arch wire materials, including a newly introduced low-friction TMA, conventional TMA, and stainless steel arch wires, using an Instron universal testing machine and to evaluate their surface topographical features using a noncontact optical profilometer. METHODS: A total of 30 arch wire specimens were used, including 10 low-friction TMA (TMA-Low), 10 conventional TMA (TMA-C), and 10 stainless steel (SS), (Ormco, Orange, CA, USA) measuring 0.016 × 0.022 in. The static frictional force of each arch wire material was measured using the universal Instron machine. The surface topography was evaluated using a noncontact profilometer machine. RESULTS: The static frictional resistance forces were highest in the TMA-C alloy group, and the value was statistically significant in comparison to the SS arch wire but not to the TMA-Low arch wire. The mean value of the static friction of the TMA-Low group was intermediate between the TMA-C and SS arch wires. However, this difference was statistically insignificant compared to the other two alloys. A surface roughness evaluation using a profilometer machine revealed that the highest mean of all three roughness parameters was found in the TMA-C group, followed by the TMA-Low and SS arch wires in descending order. CONCLUSION: The static friction resistance forces and surface roughness values of the TMA-Low arch wire are comparable to those of TMA-C but are still considered inferior to those of the SS arch wire.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the surface topography and roughness of orthodontic arch wire materials, including low-friction titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA), conventional TMA, and stainless-steel arch wires. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The surface topography was evaluated using atomic force microscopy (AFM). A total of 24 wire specimens were used for the AFM scans {8 low-friction TMA (TMA-Low), 8 conventional TMA (TMA-C), and 8 stainless steel (SS)} (Ormco, Orange, CA, USA), measuring 0.016 × 0.022 inches. The conventional and low-friction TMA arch wires served as the test groups, while the stainless-steel arch wire served as the control group. RESULTS: Surface roughness evaluation using AFM revealed that the highest mean of all three roughness parameters was found in the TMA-C group followed by the TMA-Low and SS arch wires in descending order. Pairwise comparison of the mean values showed that the mean value of the SS arch wire material is statistically significantly lower than the mean values of the other two arch wire materials (TMA-C and TMA-Low). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean values of TMA-C and TMA-Low arch wires. CONCLUSION: The SS arch wire showed the smoothest surface topography among the alloys and had statistically significantly lower roughness values than the TMA-C and TMA-Low groups. Low-friction TMA arch wire is still considered to be inferior to stainless steel arch wire.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The goal was to measure and compare the amount of force loss during tooth movement guided by archwires, including a newly introduced low-friction titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA), conventional TMA, and stainless steel archwires. METHODS: The force loss was measured using a specialized biomechanical set-up, the orthodontic measurement and simulation system (OMSS). A total of 30 specimen were used (10 low-friction TMA (TMA-Low), 10 conventional TMA (TMA-C), and 10 stainless steel (SS) archwires, each having a dimension of 0.016â¯× 0.022 inches). The conventional and low friction TMA archwires served as test groups, while the SS archwires served as the control group. RESULTS: The mean values of force loss between the three types of wires (TMAC, TMA-Low, and SS) were significantly different (pâ¯< 0.0001). The highest mean force loss during sliding movement was found in the conventional TMA group (72.1%), followed by low friction TMA (48.8%) and stainless steel wires (33.7%) in a descending order. CONCLUSION: The friction property of the low friction TMA archwire was superior to the conventional TMA archwire but was still inferior to the stainless steel archwire.
