Static frictional force and surface roughness of nickel-titanium arch wires

Prososki, Robert R.; Bagby, Michael D.; Erickson, Leslie C.

doi:10.1016/0889-5406(91)70072-5

Cited by 80 publications

(53 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…23,24 Despite the rougher surfaces of Ni-Ti wires, they produce lower friction, because other properties, such as hardness and deflection of the wire, help create softer contacts and decrease binding. 21,23,24 Some authors did not find any relation between roughness of the wire and the amount of friction created; 14 however, other studies show different results. 1,25,26 The composition of the slot is perhaps the most important factor, since the coefficient of friction, which is specific for each pair of materials, depends on it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets and archwires of different alloys compared with metal brackets

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate, in vitro, frictional forces produced by ceramic brackets and arch wires of different alloys. Frictional tests were performed on three ceramic brackets: monocrystalline (Inspire ICE), polycrystalline (InVu), polycrystalline with metal slot (Clarity), and one stainless steel bracket (Dyna-Lock). Thirty brackets of each were tested, all with .022" slots, in combination with stainless steel and nickel-titanium wires .019" × .025", at 0° and 10° angulation, in artificial saliva. Arch wires were pulled through the slots at a crosshead speed of 10 mm/min. There were statistically significant differences between the groups of brackets and wires studied (p < .05). The polycrystalline brackets with metal slots had values similar to those of conventional polycrystalline brackets, and the monocrystalline brackets had the highest frictional forces. The nickel-titanium wires produced the lowest friction. The addition of metal slots in the polycrystalline brackets did not significantly decrease frictional values. Nickel-titanium wires produced lower friction than those of stainless steel.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Dental movement is not a continuous event, but it takes place at very slow speeds and for very short distances. [13][14][15] Therefore, in this study, we considered it more relevant to evaluate static frictional forces than dynamic frictional ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets and archwires of different alloys compared with metal brackets

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…31 Many studies [6][7][8]32 confirm that a correlation exists between surface roughness and friction, but tooth orthodontic movement is a very complex process, correlated with a number of critical factors. In fact, Kusy et al, 5 Prososki et al, 33 and Ghafari 34 found that low wire-surface roughness is not a sufficient condition for low frictional coefficients.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic force microscopy

D’Antò

Rongo

Ametrano

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the surface roughness of different orthodontic archwires. Materials and Methods: Four nickel-titanium wires (SentalloyH, SentalloyH High Aesthetic, Titanium Memory ThermaTi LiteH, and Titanium Memory EstheticH), three b-titanium wires (TMAH, Colored TMAH, and Beta TitaniumH), and one stainless-steel wire (Stainless SteelH) 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). Results: The Ra, Rms, and Mh values were expressed as the mean 6 standard deviation. Among as-received archwires, the Stainless Steel (Ra 5 36.6 6 5.8; Rms 5 48 6 7.7; Mh 5 328.1 6 64) archwire was less rough than the others (ANOVA, P , .05). The Sentalloy High Aesthetic was the roughest (Ra 5 133.5 6 10.8; Rms 5 165.8 6 9.8; Mh 5 949.6 6 192.1) of the archwires. Conclusions: The surface quality of the wires investigated differed significantly. Ion implantation effectively reduced the roughness of TMA. Moreover, TeflonH-coated Titanium Memory Esthetic was less rough than was ion-implanted Sentalloy High Aesthetic. (Angle Orthod. 2012;82:922-928.)

show abstract

“…Some investigators have stated that beta-titanium archwires should be avoided whenever sliding mechanics is required. With laser spectroscopy, stainless steel appeared smoothest, followed by beta-titanium and nickel-titanium (Prososki RR et al 1991). Despite fact that laser spectroscopy has found surface of beta-titanium to be smoother than nickel-titanium (Saunders CR et al 1994), most studies show that beta-titanium wires generate more friction than nickel-titanium wires (Kapila S et al 1990, Drescher D et al 1989, Angolkar PV et al 1990).…”

Section: Beta-titaniummentioning

confidence: 99%

Friction between pre-adjusted edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires. - an in-vitro study

Jakati¹,

Vijayvargia²

2017

Int J Recent Sci Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: During Canine retraction and space consolidation, biologic tissue response and tooth movement occur only when applied forces adequately overcome the friction at bracket-wire interface. Today, many clinicians prefer to use wires of alloys such as Stainless steel, Nickeltitanium, or Beta-titanium during different phases of treatment. To deliver optimal forces for efficient and predictable tooth movement, it is necessary to have both an assessment and knowledge of forces required to overcome friction when different wire sizes and materials are used. Materials & Methods:Frictional force of Stainless steel, Nickel-titanium and Beta-titanium wires of different sizes will be tested in stainless steel pre-adjusted edgewise MBT premolar brackets. Brackets will be attached to special jig and wires will be ligated with elastomeric ligatures. Bracket movement along the wire will be implemented by an Instron universal testing machine, and frictional forces will be measured by a compression cell and recorded on an X-Y recorder. Frictional forces generate by each bracket-wire subsample will be subjected to statistical analysis. Interactive effects of wire size and alloys type on magnitude of bracket-wire friction will be assessed by twoway analysis of variance. Results &Conclusion: Sliding mechanics can best be performed using stainless steel archwire. Wire alloy could be ranked in order from lowest to highest friction: Stainless steel, Nickel-titanium and Beta-Titanium irrespective of wire and slot sizes. Frictional force increases with increase wire sizes in both 0.018 and 0.022 slot in all three kind of archwire alloys. Slotsize does not tend to have a significant effect on friction, but more importantlyrelative size of archwire within bracket slot will have a significantinfluence.

show abstract

Static frictional force and surface roughness of nickel-titanium arch wires

Cited by 80 publications

References 6 publications

Evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets and archwires of different alloys compared with metal brackets

Evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets and archwires of different alloys compared with metal brackets

Evaluation of surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic force microscopy

Friction between pre-adjusted edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires. - an in-vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About