Surface analysis of metal clips of ceramic self-ligating brackets

Objective The aim of this study was to analyze the surface composition, roughness, and relative friction of metal clips from various ceramic self-ligating brackets. Methods Six kinds of brackets were examined. The control group (mC) consisted of interactive metal self-ligating brackets while the experimental group (CC, EC, MA, QK, and WA) consisted of interactive ceramic self-ligating brackets. Atomic force microscopy-lateral force microscopy and scanning electron microscopy-energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy were used to analyze the surface of each bracket clip. Results All the clips in the experimental groups were coated with rhodium except for the QK clip. The results showed that the QK clip had the lowest average roughness on the outer surface, followed by the MA, EC, WA, and CC clips. However, the CC clip had the lowest average roughness on the inner surface, followed by the QK, WA, MA, and EC clips. The QK clip also had the lowest relative friction on the outer surface, followed by the MA, EC, CC, and WA clips. Likewise, the CC clip had the lowest relative friction on the inner surface, followed by the QK, WA, MA, and EC clips. Conclusions The surface roughness and relative friction of the rhodium-coated clips were generally higher than those of the uncoated clips.

[1]  G. Vimala,et al.  Evaluation of frictional resistance and surface characteristics after immersion of orthodontic brackets and wire in different chemical solutions: A comparative in vitrostudy , 2016, Indian journal of dental research : official publication of Indian Society for Dental Research.

[2]  Samjin Choi,et al.  Correlation between frictional force and surface roughness of orthodontic archwires. , 2015, Scanning.

[3]  Hideo Suzuki,et al.  Evaluation of stiffness and plastic deformation of active ceramic self-ligating bracket clips after repetitive opening and closure movements , 2015, Dental press journal of orthodontics.

[4]  M. Sherriff,et al.  A comparison of roughness parameters and friction coefficients of aesthetic archwires. , 2015, European journal of orthodontics.

[5]  M. Vijay,et al.  Comparison of galvanic corrosion potential of metal injection molded brackets to that of conventional metal brackets with nickel-titanium and copper nickel-titanium archwire combinations. , 2013, The journal of contemporary dental practice.

[6]  Samjin Choi,et al.  Ultrastructural effect of self‐ligating bracket materials on stainless steel and superelastic niTi wire surfaces , 2012, Microscopy research and technique.

[7]  S. Spalj,et al.  In vitro oxidative stress induced by conventional and self-ligating brackets. , 2012, The Angle orthodontist.

[8]  T. Eliades,et al.  Comparative assessment of clinical performance of esthetic bracket materials. , 2012, The Angle orthodontist.

[9]  Gi-Ja Lee,et al.  A quantitative AFM analysis of nano-scale surface roughness in various orthodontic brackets. , 2010, Micron.

[10]  Gi-Ja Lee,et al.  Surface roughness analysis of ceramic bracket slots using atomic force microscope , 2010 .

[11]  R. Kusy Morphology of polycrystalline alumina brackets and its relationship to fracture toughness and strength. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[12]  G. Cannon,et al.  Nanoscale reduction in surface friction of polymer surfaces modified with Sc3 hydrophobin from Schizophyllum commune. , 2006, Biomacromolecules.

[13]  M. Makou,et al.  Comparative assessment of the roughness, hardness, and wear resistance of aesthetic bracket materials. , 2005, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[14]  N. W. T. Harradine,et al.  Self-ligating Brackets: Where are we now? , 2003, Journal of orthodontics.

[15]  O. Keith Contemporary orthodontics , 2002, Morecambe Bay Medical Journal.

[16]  R. Kusy,et al.  Surface topography and frictional characteristics of ceramic brackets. , 1994, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[17]  J R Bednar,et al.  A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and arch wires. , 1991, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[18]  S. Kapila,et al.  Evaluation of friction between ceramic brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. , 1990, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[19]  J C Gunsolley,et al.  Frictional resistance of ceramic and stainless steel orthodontic brackets. , 1990, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[20]  A. Correr,et al.  Deflection and Flexural Strength Effects on the Roughness of Aesthetic-Coated Orthodontic Wires. , 2017, Brazilian dental journal.

[21]  L. P. Martins,et al.  Comparison surface characteristics and chemical composition of conventional metallic and nickel-free brackets. , 2015, Brazilian oral research.

[22]  Sunghwan Choi,et al.  Surface roughness of three types of modern plastic bracket slot floors and frictional resistance. , 2014, The Angle orthodontist.

[23]  Samjin Choi,et al.  Changes in ultrastructure and properties of bracket slots after orthodontic treatment with bicuspid extraction. , 2011, Scanning.