The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2020 ) > List of Articles


An In Vivo Randomized Clinical Evaluation of the Surface Morphology of Nickel–Titanium, Beta-titanium, and Copper–Nickel–Titanium

Apoorva Sahu, Veera Bhosale, Girish Rathi, Mohammed YA Khan

Citation Information : Sahu A, Bhosale V, Rathi G, Khan MY. An In Vivo Randomized Clinical Evaluation of the Surface Morphology of Nickel–Titanium, Beta-titanium, and Copper–Nickel–Titanium. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (6):636-639.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2818

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 15-10-2020

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim: Variation in the surface roughness of archwires not only leads to more accumulation of plaque but also modifies the coefficient of friction. This necessitated for the present study to evaluate the surface characteristics of 0.016 × 0.022-inch nickel–titanium, beta-titanium, and copper–nickel–titanium archwires, before and after their use in the oral cavity using atomic force microscopy. Materials and methods: The control and experimental samples were measured at three different positions under atomic force microscopy. The surface roughness was measured using roughness average, root mean square, and maximum height before and after use in the oral cavity among 60 adult participants. Data were analyzed using a one-way analysis of variance and Student's t tests using the Statistical Package for Social Software (SPSS) v.20.0. Results: The surface roughness of archwires increased considerably after their clinical use compared to controls for nickel–titanium (p = 0.013) and beta-titanium (p = 0.002). A similar trend was noticed for root mean square where nickel–titanium (p = 0.014) and beta-titanium (p = 0.013) had increased root mean square. Maximum height was also noticed in nickel–titanium (p = 0.031) and beta-titanium (p = 0.016). Conclusion: Surface roughness and the level of friction of the orthodontic wires increase significantly for nickel–titanium and beta-titanium after the clinical use. There is a difference in increase of surface roughness of the archwire within and between the bracket slots. Clinical significance: Nickel–titanium and beta-titanium wires show more roughness and resultant higher friction levels after use in the oral cavity. Hence, care related to plaque accumulation is essential.

  1. Eliades T. Orthodontic materials research and applications: part 2. Current status and projected future developments in materials and biocompatibility. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131(2): 253–262. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.029.
  2. D'Anto V, Roberto R, Gianluca A, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic force microscopy. Angle Orthod 2012;82(5):922–928. DOI: 10.2319/100211-620.1.
  3. Bourauel C, Fries T, Drescher D, et al. Surface roughness of orthodontic wires via atomic force microscopy, laser specular reflectance, and profilometry. Eur J Orthod 1998;20(1):79–92. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/20.1.79.
  4. Yousif AA, Abd El-Karim UM. Microscopic study of surface roughness of four orthodontic arch wires. Tanta Dent J 2016;13(4):199–207. DOI: 10.4103/1687-8574.195714.
  5. Krishnan V, Kumar J. Mechanical properties and surface characteristics of three archwire alloys. Angle Orthod 2004;74(6):825–831. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)0742.0.CO;2.
  6. Rongo R, Ametrano G, Gloria A, et al. Effects of intraoral aging on surface properties of coated nickel-titanium archwires. Angle Orthod 2014;84(4):665–672. DOI: 10.2319/081213-593.1.
  7. Eliades T, Bourauel C. Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127(4):403–412. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004. 09.015.
  8. Suarez C, Vilar T, Gil J, et al. In vitro evaluation of surface topographic changes and nickel release of lingual orthodontic archwires. J Mater Sci: Mater Med 2010;21(2):675–683. DOI: 10.1007/s10856-009- 3898-7.
  9. Yu JH, Wu LC, Hsu JT, et al. Surface roughness and topography of four commonly used types of orthodontic archwire. J Med Biol Eng 2011;31(5):367–370. DOI: 10.5405/jmbe.700.
  10. Juvvadi SR, Kailasam V, Padmanabhan S, et al. Physical, mechanical, and flexural properties of 3 orthodontic wires: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138(5):623–630. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.01.032.
  11. Lee GJ, Park KH, Park YG, et al. A quantitative AFM analysis of nano-scale surface roughness in various orthodontic brackets. Micron 2010;41(7):775–782. DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2010.05.013.
  12. Lee TH, Park KH, Jeon JY, et al. Changes in surface roughness of bracket and wire after experimental sliding - preliminary study using an atomic force microscopy. Korean J Orthod 2010;40(3):156–166. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2010.40.3.156.
  13. Doshi UH, Bhad-Patil WA. Static frictional force and surface roughness of various bracket and wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139(1):74–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.031.
  14. Choi S, Eun-Young H, Hun-Kuk P, et al. Correlation between frictional force and surface roughness of orthodontic archwires. Scanning 2015;37(6):399–405. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21225.
  15. Husain N, Kumar A. Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwire: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(2):91–99. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1015.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.