Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Article Menu
Export Article
More by Authors Links
Article Data
- Views 876
- Dowloads 165
Original Research
Open AccessSurface Roughness on the Slots and Wings of Various Ceramic SelfLigating Brackets and their Potential Concern on Biofilm Formation
Surface Roughness on the Slots and Wings of Various Ceramic SelfLigating Brackets and their Potential Concern on Biofilm Formation
1Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
2Department of Medical Engineering, Graduate School, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
3Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
4Research Administration, Advanced Academic Programs, Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Washington, DC USA
5Postgraduate Orthodontic Program, Arizona School of Dentistry & Oral Health, A.T. Still University, Mesa, AZ 85206 USA
6Graduate School of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
*Corresponding Author(s): Jae Hyun Park E-mail: jpark@atsu.edu
Abstract
Objective: The surface roughness of various orthodontic materials could affect biofilm formation and friction. The purpose of this study was to examine the surface roughness and chemical composition of the slots and wings of several ceramic self-ligating brackets. Study design: Four types of ceramic self-ligating brackets were separated into experimental groups (DC, EC, IC, and QK) while a metal self-ligating bracket (EM) was used as the control group. Atomic force microscopy and energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscope were used to examine the surface roughness and chemical composition of each bracket slot and wing. Results: The control group was made of ferrum and chrome while all the experimental groups were comprised of aluminum and oxide. There was a statistically significant difference in the roughness average (Sa) among the various selfligating brackets (p< 0.001 in slots and p<0.01 in the wing). The slots in the EC group had the lowest Sa, followed by the DC, IC, control, and QK groups. The wings in the IC group had the lowest Sa, followed by the EC, DC, control, and QK groups. Conclusions: There is a significant difference in the surface roughness of the slots and wings among several types of ceramic self-ligating brackets.
Keywords
Self-ligating bracket; Atomic force microscopy; Energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscope; Surface roughness; Biofilm
Cite and Share
Ki-Ho Park,Se Jik Han,Samjin Choi,Kyung Sook Kim,Steven Park,Jae Hyun Park. Surface Roughness on the Slots and Wings of Various Ceramic SelfLigating Brackets and their Potential Concern on Biofilm Formation. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2020. 44(6);451-458.
References
1. Birnie D. Ceramic brackets. Br J Orthod 17:71-74, 1990.
2. Russell JS. Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod 32:146-163, 2005.
3. Stolzenberg J. The Russell attachment and its improved advantages. Int J Orthod Dent Child 21:837-840, 1935.
4. Harradine NWT. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 30:262-273, 2003.
5. Ghasemi T, Arash V, Rabiee SM, Rajabnia R, Pourzare A, Rakhshan V. Antimicrobial effect, frictional resistance, and surface roughness of stainless steel orthodontic brackets coated with nanofilms of silver and titanium oxide: a preliminary study. Microsc Res Tech 80:599-607, 2017.
6. Ahn SJ, Lim BS, Lee SJ. Prevalence of cariogenic streptococci on incisor brackets detected by polymerase chain reaction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131:736–741, 2007.
7. 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 42:129–137, 2012.
8. Park KH, Yoon HJ, Kim SJ, Lee GJ, Park HK, Park YG. Surface roughness analysis of ceramic bracket slots using atomic force microscope. Korean J Orthod 40:294-303, 2010.
9. Pratten DH, Popli K, Germane N, Gunsolley JC. Frictional resistance of ceramic and stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 98:398-403, 1990.
10. Sung HM, Park YC. Comparison of the frictional resistance between orthodontic bracket & archwire. Korean J Orthod 21:543-559, 1991.
11. Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 96:397-404, 1989.
12. Tanne K, Matsubara S, Hotei Y, Sakuda M, Yoshida M. Frictional forces and surface topography of a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 106:273-278, 1994.
13. Choi S, Hwang EY, Park HK, Park YG. Correlation between frictional force and surface roughness of orthodontic archwires. Scanning 37:399- 405, 2015.
14. Kim KS, Han SJ, Lee TH, Park TJ, Choi S, Kang YG, Park KH. Surface analysis of metal clips of ceramic self-ligating brackets. Korean J Orthod. 49:12-20, 2019.
15. Lee SP, Lee SJ, Lim BS, Ahn SJ. Surface characteristics of orthodontic materials and their effects on adhesion of mutans streptococci. Angle Orthod 79:353-360, 2009.
16. Quirynen M, Bollen CM. The influence of surface roughness and surfacefree energy on supra- and subgingival plaque formation in man. A review of the literature. J Clin Periodontol 22:1-14, 1995.
17. Teughels W, Van Assche N, Sliepen I, Quirynen M. Effect of material characteristics and/or surface topography on biofilm development. Clin Oral Implants Res 17:68-81, 2006.
18. Jansen B, Kohnen W. Prevention of biofilm formation by polymer modification. J Ind Microbiol 15:391-396, 1995.
19. Ahn HB, Ahn SJ, Lee SJ, Kim TW, Nahm DS. Analysis of surface roughness and surface free energy characteristics of various orthodontic materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 136:668-674, 2009.
20. Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW, Sandrik JL. A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 100:513-522, 1991.
21. Saunders CR, Kusy RP. Surface topography and frictional characteristics of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 106:76-87, 1994.
22. Huang TH, Luk HS, Hsu YC, Kao CT. An in vitro comparison of the frictional forces between archwires and self-ligating brackets of passive and active types. Eur J Orthod 34:625-632, 2012.
23. Liu X, Lin J, Ding P. Changes in the surface roughness and friction coefficient of orthodontic bracket slots before and after treatment. Scanning 35:265-272, 2013.
24. Cassinelli C, Morra M. Atomic force microscopy studies of the interaction of a dentin adhesive with tooth hard tissue. J Biomed Mater Res 28:1427-1431, 1994.
25. Marshall GW Jr, Balooch M, Tench RJ, Kinney JH, Marshall SJ. Atomic force microscopy of acid effects on dentin. Dent Mater 9:265-268, 1993.
26. Marshall GW Jr, Balooch M, Kinney JH, Marshall SJ. Atomic force microscopy of conditioning agents on dentin. J Biomed Mater Res 29:1381-1387, 1995.
27. Poletti G, Orsini F, Lenardi C, Barborini E. A comparative study between AFM and SEM imaging on human scalp hair. J Microsc 211:249-255, 2003.
28. Swartz ML. Ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 22:82-88, 1988.
29. Gwinnett AJ. A comparison of shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 93:346-348, 1988.
30. Silver M, Griffin AC Jr, Azzopardi L, Masoud MI, Tokede O, Griffin AC 3rd. Novel methods reveal that parallelism contributes to the functional vertical slot dimension in ceramic and metal brackets. Angle Orthod 88:812-818, 2018.
31. Sardin S, Morrier JJ, Benay G, Barsotti O. In vitro streptococcal adherence on prosthetic and implant materials. Interactions with physicochemical surface properties. J Oral Rehabil 31:140-148, 2004.
32. Contreras-Guerrero P, Ortiz-Magdaleno M, Urcuyo-Alvarado MS, Cepeda-Bravo JA, Leyva-Del Rio D, Pérez-López JE, Romo-Ramírez GF, Sánchez-Vargas LO. Effect of dental restorative materials surface roughness on the in vitro biofilm formation of Streptococcus mutans biofilm. Am J Dent 33:59-63, 2020.
33. Aykent F, Yondem I, Ozyesil AG, Gunal SK, Avunduk MC, Ozkan S. Effect of different finishing techniques for restorative materials on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion. J Prosthet Dent 103:221-227, 2010.
34. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, de Araujo Gurgel J. Comparisons of surface roughnesses and sliding resistances of 6 titanium-based or TMA-type archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:589–603, 2004.
35. Angolkar PV, Kapila S, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS. Evaluation of friction between ceramic brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 98:499–506, 1990.
Abstracted / indexed in
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.
Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.
Submission Turnaround Time
Conferences
Top