2017
DOI: 10.15386/cjmed-729
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluation of the Mechanical Properties and Surface Topography of as-Received, Immersed and as-Retrieved Orthodontic Archwires

Abstract: Background and aimsThis experimental study mainly aims at comparing the most important mechanical properties of the new orthodontic archwires, those immersed in fluorinated solution, the as-retrieved ones and the intra-oral used ones.MethodsA total of 270 arch wires were tested, using tensile testing and three-point bending tests. The tested archwires were made of Stainless Steel, Nickel Titanium, Beta-Titanium and physiognomic covered Nickel Titanium. The tested archwires were subjected to three types of trea… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Even so, in this study, the unloading force of the wire immersed in NaF solutions increased. Similar results of increasing unloading force were reported by Pop et al ,[ 28 ] where NiTi wires were immersed in fluoride and coke solution, and by Aghili et al ,[ 29 ] where they were immersed in mouthwash solution. This difference did not mean mechanical properties improved after immersion; it was due to the different methods and materials used.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Even so, in this study, the unloading force of the wire immersed in NaF solutions increased. Similar results of increasing unloading force were reported by Pop et al ,[ 28 ] where NiTi wires were immersed in fluoride and coke solution, and by Aghili et al ,[ 29 ] where they were immersed in mouthwash solution. This difference did not mean mechanical properties improved after immersion; it was due to the different methods and materials used.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 86%
“…Differences in saliva discharges (i.e., its quality and quantity) may also contribute to the disparity between the upper and lower arches. The reasons for these differences are certainly complex, but the most important element is that the archwires that have already been used are more corroded by salivary secretions, chewing, grinding, and friction potency between the archwires and the braces [10,11]. Despite the surface quality of the same archwire changing slightly and the varying smoothness in the posterior and anterior sections, this study revealed undulated contacts with processing scratches and cracks.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 81%
“…There appear to be limited clinical studies and a notorious inability of in vitro research to simulate in vivo conditions [27][28][29] since the multiplicity of factors present in the oral cavity cannot be simulated [27,[30][31][32]. Due to its reproducibility, the three-point bending test is the standard method for testing and comparing flexural properties [3,5,33,34]. However, studies show wide variability in this method, indicating no established consensus about how testing should be undertaken [3,5,9,35].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%