ArticleCureus2024
A Comparative Evaluation of Surface Hardness and Nanomechanical Properties of Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Wires: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An overview of types of antibacterial coatings and methods for creating them on orthodontic wires.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe study aimed to evaluate the influence of various surface coatings (epoxy, Teflon, and rhodium) on the surface roughness (SR) and nanomechanical characteristics of nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires. The study compared these coated archwires to uncoated ones from a single manufacturer, which served as a control. MATERIALS AND
methodsThere were 15 rectangular samples of four distinct archwires measuring 0.17 × 0.25. These were ultrasonically treated with an alkaline solution at 60°C for 15 minutes before being rinsed with distilled water to remove precipitates. With an orthodontic soft wire cutter, the straight buccal sections of coated and uncoated archwires were cut into 20 mm lengths. A three-dimensional optical noncontact surface profilometer evaluated the surface. Profilometers use contact scanning white light interferometry. Using the Vision64 software (Bruker Corporation, San Jose, CA), the profilometer's nanolens atomic force microscopy module has a completely automated turret with programmed X, Y, and Z motions. Images were taken in five random locations. Five average measurements matched specimen SR. A nanoindenter with a Berkovich diamond indenter measured nanohardness (NH) and elastic modulus (EM). The experimental results were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software version 26.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). To examine mean differences at 5% significance, analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test were applied for SR, NH, and EM.
resultsWires coated with epoxy had the highest SR (1.499 ± 0.082), followed by Teflon (0.811 ± 0.023) and rhodium (0.308 ± 0.024). The SR of the control group was 0.289 ± 0.027. Significant differences in SR were found (p < 0.0001). Except for the comparison between rhodium and the control group (p = 0.684), all intergroup comparisons of SR showed significant differences (p < 0.0001). The rhodium-coated wires exhibited the highest NH (0.185 ± 0.014), and the epoxy group had the lowest (0.147 ± 0.017). Variations in NH were significant between the study groups (p < 0.0001). The epoxy, Teflon, and rhodium groups showed significant differences against the control group (p < 0.0001) in intergroup comparisons for NH. The Teflon group had the highest EM (5.367 ± 0.379), and the epoxy group had the lowest (5.012 ± 0.498). The EM of the control group was 56.946 ± 0.737. Results indicate considerable EM changes between the groups (p < 0.05). Comparisons between experimental and control groups showed significant differences (p < 0.0001).
conclusionThe study's findings indicate that the SR of rhodium-coated archwires is substantially comparable to that of uncoated archwires. However, Teflon-, rhodium-, and epoxy-coated archwires had significantly different NH and EM compared to uncoated ones. Further, uncoated archwires have higher NH and EM.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.