Original Article

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

Introduction

Several properties explored in the search for an ideal archwire in orthodontics include biostability, friction, formability, weldability, resilience, and spring-back.¹ Of late, a variety of alloys for orthodontic archwires have been introduced due to the groundbreaking research work carried out in orthodontic materials. The orthodontist can now choose an ideal wire for the necessary clinical condition. The surface roughness (SR) of archwires determines the surface area in contact and can affect the frictional characteristics, corrosion behavior, and biocompatibility.² Studieshave shown that all these properties influence the clinical performance of orthodontic archwires.³ Furthermore, surface topography can critically alter the frictional characteristics and corrosion resistance, affecting the efficiency of archwires.⁴ SR can also influence plaque accumulation and this, in turn, has an essential role in other properties previously described.³ Archwires used for orthodontic treatment are subjected to various mechanical, chemical, and thermal stresses in the patient’s mouth and the surface topography of the wire can influence wires.

SR analysis of different archwires is important for evaluating archwire performance. Previously, SR evaluation was performed with surface profilometry,² where a thin tip is employed in a single line of a selected area to scan the surface topography. The disadvantage of this method was that measuring surface defects near the scan line was difficult. Also, profilometry is a more invasive technique that could deteriorate the surface while scanning. The demand for non-invasive techniques leads to the introduction of new analysis methods, such as optical methods⁵ and the scanning tunneling microscope method.⁶ With these techniques, it became possible to perform a surface analysis on preselected areas of archwires without directly interacting with them. Scanning probe microscopy involves the following types: the atomic force microscope (AFM),⁷ scanning tunneling microscopes, and the magnetic force microscope. As the AFM can provide 3D images of surface morphology with high resolution, it is considered the most suitable tool for quantifying surface topography.^2,8,9 It belongs to a class of tools that use a scanning probe that uses the interatomic interactions to acquire information on the detected surfaces using sensors.^8,10,11 These sensors consist of sharp points that interact with the specimen surface. In addition to obtaining 3D images in the AFM technique, 2D images are also prepared simultaneously, and the samples can be re-assessed without being destroyed.² The main drawback of AFM is the small scan size and slow scanning speed, which often impedes the complete evaluation of the sample.

This study aimed to measure and compare the surface topography of five different archwires by two different manufacturers using AFM.

Materials and Methods

Five different rectangular cross-sections of orthodontic archwires were considered for this study: SmartArch wires (Ormco), Damon wires (Ormco), HANT wires (G&H Orthodontics), NiTi wires (G&H Orthodontics), and SS wires (Ormco). Ten samples from each wire group were used. From the ten samples, 5 mm of wire was cut from the end of the archwires. These were viewed under the AFM under ambient conditions.

The samples were tested using atomic force microscopy at the Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai. The Department is equipped with a Digital Instruments Dimension^TM 3100 Atomic Force Microscope, which is used for surface profiling with high resolution at the Angstrom level.

A metal holder with cyanoacrylate glue was used to attach the samples. Five areas of the archwire surface were randomly selected and assessed for each sample. The Gwyddion software was used to process the 3D images. The average surface roughness (Ra), the root mean square (rms), and the maximum height (mh) were the parameters assessed by the software. The arithmetic mean of absolute values and root mean square of the scanned surface were represented by Ra and rms, respectively, whereas mh represented the maximum height of the surface profile peak.

Statistical tests were performed using SPSS 23.0.0. Descriptive statistics were used along with one-way ANOVA, followed by post hoc Tukey tests, to compare the surface characteristics of the different orthodontic archwires.

Results

In all the wires tested, many topographic irregularities were reported. The 3-D AFM topography images of all the tested wires were assessed (). The two-dimensional images were also analyzed to evaluate the nanodomain dimensions. Table 1 depicts the means and standard deviations of the three roughness parameters used to analyze the surface topography of each archwire quantitatively.

Close

Figure 1. Representative three-dimensional AFM topography images of the eight samples of orthodontic archwires: (A) SmartArch wire, (B) Damon wire, (C) Heat-Activated NiTi, (D) Stainless Steel wire, and (E) NiTi wire.

Table 2 presents the results of ANOVA for statistical comparison of differences in surface topography parameters between the different archwires. Among the five archwires, the least SR was reported in SS wires (Ra = 8.69 ± 0.18), followed by conventional NiTi wires (Ra = 10.29 ± 2.12), HANT wires (Ra = 22.97 ± 16.55), SmartArch wires (Ra = 25.55 ± 3.78), and Damon wires (Ra = 25.67 ± 4.54), with significant differences between them (P < 0.05).

Among the NiTi wires, conventional NiTi wire exhibited the least SR, and the difference in SR was significant between them (P < 0.05). Among the shape memory wires, the HANT wires exhibited the least SR, but the difference was not significant (P > 0.05).

Discussion

In the present study, SS wires exhibited the least SR compared to NiTi and shape-memory wires. Among the CuNiTi archwires, the heat-activated NiTi exhibited the least roughness characteristics. However, this was not statistically significant. Various studies have compared the SR of NiTi and NiTi-coated wires and TMA and TMA-coated wires, etc. However, fewer studies have compared the surface topography of shape memory wires with NiTi and SS wires.

Stainless steel exhibited the least SR in the present study. D’Antò et al⁸ compared four nickel-titanium wires, three beta-titanium wires, and one stainless steel wire using AFM technology. Yousif and Abd El-Karim¹² compared stainless steel (SS), titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA), nitinol (NiTi), and copper NiTi wires. Both studies demonstrated that stainless steel wires had the lowest SR, frictional coefficient, and sliding resistance. Bourauel et al² compared 11 NiTi wires, and Prososki et al¹³ compared 9 NiTi wires with one SS wire and one beta-titanium wire. The authors in both studies noted that the SS wire had the smoothest surface. Additionally, Shin et al¹⁴ compared NiTi and SS wires and reported that SS wires were smoother. Amini et al¹⁵ also observed similar results, but this was not statistically significant. However, they also reported that the NiTi wire of American Orthodontics was smoother than the SS wire, which could be attributed to random sampling methods. Also, the selected parts may have been compromised during manufacturing processes or delivery.

In the current study, the surface topographic characteristics of archwires were analyzed using AFM. AFM is a non-invasive method compared to surface profilometry and an established method; hence, we used it in our study. Yousif and Abd El-Karim¹² studied the comparison of SR of orthodontic archwires obtained using AFM and digital optical microscopy, reporting no significant difference between the values obtained from these methods, indicating that both methods are effective in determining the SR of archwires.

According to the Amontons-Coulomb Law (the first law of friction), the frictional coefficient of an archwire depends on the wire roughness and its physical characteristics.¹⁶ The frictional force between brackets and wires is an unfavorable factor that can influence the tooth movement during sliding mechanics. Several studies^17,18 reported a correlation between SR and friction. However, the orthodontic movement of teeth is an intricate process associated with several important factors. The production technique is one of the important factors affecting archwires’ surface topography.⁸ It has been observed that the SR of a group of wires produced by the same manufacturer is almost the same in the given wires. Other factors that could influence the surface characteristics of a wire can be the materials used, the coatings used, and the manufacturing technique.^19,20

Conclusion

Within the limitations of the study, it was found that the surface quality of stainless steel wire was less rough compared to the other wires. All the tested shape-memory wires exhibited similar SR. Apart from influencing the effectiveness of sliding mechanics, the SR could also affect the corrosion nature and the appeal of orthodontic components. Hence, the surface quality of the orthodontic archwires should be enhanced during the manufacturing process.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to our research supervisor Dr. Ravindra Kumar Jain, associate professor, Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, for his guidance and encouragement with our work in all stages. We would also like to acknowledge Dr. Chirag Chawan for his contribution to this study.

Authors’ Contributions

Both authors have equally contributed to the design, conception, and preparation of this research.

Funding

No funding.

Ethics Approval

This study was approved by the Scientific Review Board of Saveetha Dental College with the ethical clearance number IHEC/SDC/ORTHO-1903/21/171.

Competing Interests

No conflicts of interest.

References

1. Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin Orthod 1997; 3(3):166-77. doi: 10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80067-9 [Crossref]
2. 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 [Crossref]
3. The effect of surface treatment and clinical use on friction in NiTi orthodontic wires. Dent Mater 2005; 21(10):938-45. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.11.011 [Crossref]
4. Surface roughness of stainless steel and electroformed nickel standards using a HeNe laser. Opt Laser Technol 1987; 19(4):189-96. doi: 10.1016/0030-3992(87)90065-x [Crossref]
5. Optical techniques for on-line measurement of surface topography. Precis Eng 1981; 3(2):61-83. doi: 10.1016/0141-6359(81)90038-6 [Crossref]
6. Tunneling through a controllable vacuum gap. Appl Phys Lett 1982; 40(2):178-80. doi: 10.1063/1.92999 [Crossref]
7. Atomic force microscope. Phys Rev Lett 1986; 56(9):930-3. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.56.930 [Crossref]
8. Evaluation of surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic force microscopy. Angle Orthod 2012; 82(5):922-8. doi: 10.2319/100211-620.1 [Crossref]
9. Characterizing three-dimensional topography of engineering and biomaterial surfaces by confocal laser scanning and stylus techniques. Med Eng Phys 1996; 18(7):548-56. doi: 10.1016/1350-4533(95)00005-4 [Crossref]
10. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2007; 18(1):155-63. doi: 10.1007/s10856-006-0675-8 [Crossref]
11. A quantitative AFM analysis of nano-scale surface roughness in various orthodontic brackets. Micron 2010; 41(7):775-82. doi: 10.1016/j.micron.2010.05.013 [Crossref]
12. Microscopic study of surface roughness of four orthodontic arch wires. Tanta Dent J 2016; 13(4):199-207. doi: 10.4103/1687-8574.195714 [Crossref]
13. Static frictional force and surface roughness of nickel-titanium arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100(4):341-8. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(91)70072-5 [Crossref]
14. In vitro surface corrosion of stainless steel and NiTi orthodontic appliances. Aust Orthod J 2003; 19(1):13-8.
15. Variations in surface roughness of seven orthodontic archwires: an SEM-profilometry study. Korean J Orthod 2012; 42(3):129-37. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.3.129 [Crossref]
16. Jackson GBook Reviews: Organizational Communication: The Essence of Effective ManagementPhillip VLewisNew York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 1987337 pages. J Bus Commun (1973) 1987; 24(3):66-8. doi: 10.1177/002194368702400312 [Crossref]
17. The dynamic frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106(2):131-8. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(94)70030-3 [Crossref]
18. Evaluation of frictional resistance in esthetic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997; 112(2):138-44. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70238-5 [Crossref]
19. A comparison of roughness parameters and friction coefficients of aesthetic archwires. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37(1):49-55. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cju004 [Crossref]
20. Effect of esthetic coating on surface roughness of orthodontic archwires. Int Orthod 2017; 15(3):312-21. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2017.06.019 [Crossref]