Surface Topography of Plain Nickel-Titanium (Niti), As-Received Aesthetic (Coated) Niti, and Aesthetic Niti Archwires Sterilized by Autoclaving or Glutaraldehyde Immersion: A Profilometry/Sem/Afm Study; [Comparaison Par Profilometrie Et Microscopie Sem/Afm De La Topographie De Surface Des Fils Orthodontiques En Nickel-Titane Pur (Niti) a Celle Des Fils En Niti Esthetique a L’Etat Initial Et Apres Sterilisation a L'autoclave Ou Par Immersion Dans Le Glutaraldehyde] Publisher Pubmed



Shamohammadi M¹ ; Hormozi E² ; Moradinezhad M¹ ; Moradi M³ ; Skini M⁴ ; Rakhshan V⁵ Show Affiliations
Source: International Orthodontics Published:2019

Abstract

Background and aim: Surface topography is a crucial factor in bracket sliding mechanics. Literature on surface roughness of aesthetic archwires is scarce, and there is no study on surface topography of such archwires affected by any sterilization methods. The aim of this study was to compare the surface topography of plain nickel-titanium (NiTi) versus as-received aesthetic coated NiTi wires versus aesthetic wires sterilized by autoclaving or glutaraldehyde immersion. Materials and methods: This in vitro study was performed on 80 atomic force microscopy (AFM) observations, 160 profilometry observations, and 40 scanning electron microscopy (SEM) images from rectangular wires of the brands ‘American Orthodontics, Ortho Organizers, SIA, and Gestenco’. AFM consisted of 8 subgroups of NiTi orthodontic wires, consisting of 4 subgroups of 4 brands of coated orthodontic wires and 4 subgroups of 4 brands of uncoated wires from the same brands. Profilometry consisted of 16 subgroups of NiTi orthodontic wires, consisting of 4 subgroups of 4 brands of coated orthodontic wires and 12 subgroups of 4 brands of uncoated wires from the same brands (4 as-received wire subgroups, 4 autoclaved, and 4 cold-sterilized subgroups). Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and AFM images were subjectively evaluated. AFM and profilometry data were analysed statistically (α = 0.05). Results: Overall, the difference between surface roughness parameters of coated versus uncoated archwires was not significant (P > 0.05). However, surface roughness of brands differed significantly. Mann-Whitney did not show any significant differences between sterilized wires (both sterilization methods together as one group) and unsterilized wires (both unsterilized coated and uncoated as one group) (P > 0.460). After excluding plain uncoated NiTi group, the coated wires in 3 sterilization groups (no sterilization, autoclaving, glutaraldehyde) were not significantly different in terms of average overall surface roughness (Ra) and maximum roughness depths (Rq) of different sterilization groups (P > 0.1) but the average maximum peak to valley heights (Rz) values of 3 sterilization groups were significantly different (P = 0.0415). Dunn test showed that among three post-hoc pairwise comparisons of Rz values, only the comparison of “no sterilization versus autoclaving” was significant (P < 0.05) and the other two were non-significant. Conclusion: Coating might not affect the surface roughness considerably. Brands have different surface roughnesses. Autoclaving but not cold sterilization might affect the surface roughness of coated archwires. © 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS