Comparison of cleaning methods on debris, surface roughness and static friction of retrieved stainless steel archwires

  • Fabiano Dalla Lana Mattiello Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
  • Paulo Ricardo Baccarin Matje Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
  • Kim Beom Kim Saint Louis University
  • Eduardo Gonçalves Mota Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
  • Eustáquio Afonso Araújo Saint Louis University
  • Eduardo Martinelli de Lima Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande do Sul
Keywords: Dental materials, orthodontic wires, biofilms, orthodontic friction.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the amount of debris, surface roughness and static friction in retrieved stainless steel (SS) archwires after four weeks of intraoral exposure and afterwards compare the effects of different cleaning methods.
METHODS: The sample gathered seventeen as-received and eighty-five retrieved SS archwire segments, which were allocated in cleaning method groups (N=17): retrieved (RT); sodiumbicarbonate jet (SB-jet); ultrasonic cleaner (U-sonic); alcohol soaked gauze (A-gauze); and steel wool sponge (S-wool). Debris (SEM images), surface roughness (rugosimeter) and static friction
(universal testing machine) were compared between as-received and retrieved SS wires and between cleaning method groups.
RESULTS: Debris and surface roughness were statistically higher in RT wires than in as-received (p<0.001), whereas static friction showed no statistical difference (p>0.05). Debris were significantly lower in groups A-gauze and S-wool than in groups RT, SB-jet and U-sonic (p<0.001). Surface roughness was statistically lower in group S-wool compared to other groups (p<0.001). Static friction showed no statistical difference between cleaning methods (p>0.05).
CONCLUSION: Retrieved SS archwires showed higher debris and surface roughness than asreceived, after four-weeks intraorally. A-gauze and S-wool were effective cleaning methods to control debris, but only S-wool has reduced surface roughness.

References

Ribeiro GLU, Jacob HB. Understanding the basis of space closure in Orthodontics for a more efficient orthodontic treatment. Dental Press J

Orthod. 2016;21(2):115-25. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177- 6709.21.2.115-125.sar

Mezomo M, de Lima ES, de Menezes LM, Weissheimer A, Allgayer S. Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets.Angle Orthod. 2011;81:292-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/062510-348.1

Chaturvedi TP, Upadhayay SN. An overview of orthodontic material degradation in oral cavity. Indian J Dent Res. 2010;21:275-84. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.66648

Daems J, Celis JP, Willems G. Morphological characterization of asreceived and in vivo orthodontic stainless steel archwires. Eur J Orthod.2009;31:260-5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn104

Eliades T, Athanasiou AE. In vivo aging of orthodontic alloys: implications for corrosion potential, nickel release, and biocompatibility. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:222-37.

Marques IS, Araújo AM, Gurgel JA, Normando D. Debris, roughness and friction of stainless steel archwires following clinical use. Angle Orthod.2010;80:521-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/081109-457.1

Normando D, Araújo AM, Marques ISV, Dias CGBT, Miguel JAM. Archwire cleaning after intraoral ageing: the effects on debris, roughness, and friction. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35:223-9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr104

Kumar A, Khanam A, Ghafoor H. Effects of intraoral aging of arch-wires on frictional forces: An ex vivo study. J Orthod Sci. 2016;5(4):109-16. https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.192112

Eliades T. Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127:403-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.09.015

Eliades T, Eliades G, Athanasiou AE, Bradley TG. Surface characterization of retrieved NiTi orthodontic archwires. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:317-26. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/22.3.317

Perakaki K, Mellor AC, Qualtrough A J. Comparison of an ultrasonic

cleaner and washer disinfector in the cleaning of endodontic files. J Hosp Infect. 2007;67:355-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhin.2007.09.009

Van Eldik DA, Zilm PS, Rogers AH, Marin PD. A SEM evaluation of debris removal from endodontic files after cleaning and steam sterilization procedures. Aust Dent J. 2004;49:128-35. https://doi.

org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2004.tb00061.x

Yanase Y, Ioi H, Nishioka M, Takahashi I. Effects of sliding velocity on

friction. An in vitro study at extremely low sliding velocity approximating orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:451-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/060513-427.1

Regis S Jr, Soares P, Camargo ES, Guariza Filho O, Tanaka O, Maruo

H. Biodegradation of orthodontic metallic brackets and associated implications for friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:501-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.01.023

Khambay B, Millet D, McHugh S. Archwire seating forces produced by

different ligation methods and their effect on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:302-8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji008

Filho JC, Consolmagno AV, de Araújo CM, Brunet MD, Rosa EA, Tanaka OM. Effect of sodium bicarbonate air abrasive polishing on resistance to sliding during tooth alignment and leveling: An in vitro study. Eur J Gen Dent. 2012;1:78-84. https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-9626.103381

Articolo LC, Kusy RP. Influence of angulation on the resistance to sliding in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115:39-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70314-8

Chimenti C, Franchi L, Di Giuseppe MG, Lucci M. Friction of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures with different dimensions. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75:421-5.

Cunha AC, Marquezan M, Freitas AO, Nojima LI. Frictional resistance of orthodontic wires tied with 3 types of elastomeric ligatures. Braz Oral Res. 2011;25:526-30. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242011005000015

Nair SV, Padmanabhan R, Janardhanam P. Evaluation of the effect of

bracket and archwire composition on frictional forces in the buccal segments. Indian J Dent Res. 2012;23:203-8. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.100426

Kusy RP. Ongoing innovations in biomechanics and materials for the new millennium. Angle Orthod. 2000;70:366-76.

Bourauel C, Fries T, Drescher D, Plietsch R. Surface roughness of orthodontic wires via atomic force microscopy, laser specular reflectance and profilometer. Eur J Orthod. 1998;20:79-92. https://doi.org/10.1093/ ejo/20.1.79

Pacheco MR, Jansen WC, Oliveira DD. The role of friction in orthodontics. Dental Press J Orthod. 2012;17(2):170-7. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2176-94512012000200028

Amini F, Rakhshan V, Pousti M, Rahimi H, Shariati M, Aghamohamadi

B. Variations in surface roughness of seven orthodontic archwires: an

SEM-profilometry study. Korean J Orthod. 2012;42:129-37. https://doi. org/10.4041/kjod.2012.42.3.129

Fourie Z, Ozcan M, Sandham A. Effect of dental arch convexity and

type of archwire on frictional forces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.

;136:14.e1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.026

Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin Orthod. 1997;3:166-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(97)80067-9

Doshi UH, Bhad-Patil WA. Static frictional force and surface roughness of various bracket and wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;139:74-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.031

Published
2018-03-23
Section
Original Article