J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2022;16(2): 91-94.
doi: 10.34172/joddd.2022.015

Scopus ID: 85139948939
  Abstract View: 91
  PDF Download: 65

Basic Research

Original Article

An in vitro comparative evaluation of surface roughness characteristics of different orthodontic archwires: An atomic force microscopy study

Reshma Mohan 1 ORCID logo, Ravindra Kumar Jain 1* ORCID logo

1 Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospital, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Tamil Nadu, India
*Corresponding Author: Corresponding author: Ravindra Kumar Jain, Email: , Email: ravindrakumar@saveetha.com


Background. The present study evaluated and compared the surface roughness (SR) of five different types of orthodontic archwires made by two different manufacturers.

Methods. In this in vitro study, 10 samples of five different archwires comprising of three types of shape memory wires, SmartArch (Ormco), Damon (Ormco), Heat-activated NiTi (HANT) (G&H Orthodontics), Stainless Steel wire (SS) (Ormco), and conventional NiTi (G&H Orthodontics) were examined by atomic force microscopy (AFM). The processing of 3D images was carried out using Gwyddion software, from which the root mean square (rms), the roughness average (Ra), and the maximum height (mh) of the scanned surface profile were documented. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey tests for intergroup comparisons.

Results. The mean SR of SS wires was the least (Ra=8.70±0.17), followed by NiTi wires (10.29±2.00) with a significant difference between them (P<0.05). Among the three shape-memory wires, the HANT wires had the least SR (Ra=22.97±16.56) compared to SmartArch wires (Ra=25.55±3.78) and Damon wires (Ra=25.67±4.54), but the difference was not significant (P>0.05).

Conclusion. The SS wires by Ormco had the least SR followed by G&H orthodontics NiTi wires. The three different shape-memory wires tested had no significant difference in SR values.

First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Security code

Abstract View: 91

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Download: 65

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 28 Jul 2021
Revision: 31 Jan 2022
Accepted: 01 Feb 2022
ePublished: 15 Oct 2022
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)