Shaimaa.doc J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(1), March 2016 An evaluation of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 153 An Evaluation of Corrosion Pits in Esthetic Coated Stainless Steel Orthodontic Archwires in Dry and Wet Environment at Different Intervals (An In Vitro Study) Shaimaa K. Mohsin, B.D.S. (1) Iman I. Al-Sheakli, B.D.S., M.Sc. (2) ABSTRACT Background: The demand for esthetic orthodontic appliances is increasing; so the esthetic orthodontic archwires were introduced. Among them, Teflon and Epoxy coated stainless steel archwires. The amount of force available from the archwire depends on the structural properties and susceptibility to corrosion. All metallic alloys are changed during immersion in artificial saliva, chlorhexidine mouthwash andtoothpaste, but their behaviors differ from one type to another. They corrode at different rates, which lead to decrease the amount of force applied to the teeth. This in vitro study was designed to evaluate the corrosion pits in stainless steel archwires coated with Teflon and with Epoxy in dry and after immersion in artificial saliva, chlorhexidine(0.2%) (Parodontax) and toothpaste media (Sensodyne) for (1, 7 and 28) days intervals. Moreover, this study is intended to compare the corrosion pits for each type of archwires at these different media among all intervals. Materials and Methods: In this study, two hundred forty pieces of orthodontic wires of Teflon (Hubit) coated Stainless steel (120 pieces) and epoxy (Orthotechnology) coated Stainless steel (120 pieces), rectangular in cross section, size (0.019 x 0.025) inch and 15mm in length divided into four groups according to immersion media: (dry environment group, artificial saliva group, chlorhexidine group and toothpaste group). The atomic force microscope was used to measure the corrosion pits for all samples at dry and wet conditions and after different immersion periods. Results: Statistical analysis showed that there was a highly significant increase in the corrosion pits of Teflon coated stainless steel archwires (P ≤ 0.05) in wet environment at 28 days immersion period.The highest corrosion pits were found in the toothpaste medium for the two archwire types at 28 days immersion period. Conclusion: We can conclude that Epoxy coatedstainless steel archwires are indicated to be used above Teflon coated stainless steel archwires in terms of corrosion resistance. IfTeflon coated stainless steel archwires should to be used, they should be change in shorter periods than Epoxy coated stainless steel archwires type Key words: Esthetic coated archwire, corrosion, Teflon, Epoxy, wet environment, AFM. (J Bagh Coll Dentistry 2016; 28(1):153-157). INTRODUCTION Appearance is one of patients' main concerns during orthodontic treatment so there is a growing demand for esthetic appliances (1,2) but most fixed orthodontic appliance components are metallic and silver in color (3). This demand has led to the development of orthodontic appliances with acceptable esthetics both for patients and for clinicians (4). This problem has been partially solved by the introduction of esthetic brackets made of ceramic or composite (5,6). However, most archwires are still made of metal such as stainless steel and nickel-titanium, a number of alternatives have been explored to create an esthetic arch wire (7,8). Among these alternatives, coated wires with polymeric materials have been developed (9,10). Materials used in the coating process are Teflon or epoxy resin. The coating manufactured with a process, which plates the base wire (11). The conditions in the mouth are very suitable for the occurrence of corrosion because the oralcavity is warm and wet. The oral environment is particularly ideal for the biodegradation of (1) Master Student, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad. (2) Assist. Professor, Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad. metal because of its thermal, microbiologic and enzymatic properties (12). These environmental conditions of the oral cavity might alter the morphological characteristics of archwires (13). The ideal archwire is the wire that can withstand the extreme conditions of the mouth (14). Orthodontic alloys must have excellent resistance to corrosion especially in the oral environment. This corrosion resistance is very important for two reasons first is biocompatibility and second is orthodontic appliance durability (15) Understanding the basic material characteristics becomes essential for selecting wires for use in the treatment. Materials used in dentistry must have specific characteristics such as biological safety, adequate tissue response, and resistance to corrosion because they remain in the oral cavity and subjected to the oral environment’s physical properties (chemical and microbiological properties), that stimulate the dissolution of metals (16). Therefore, the objectives of this study were three. First, to evaluate and compare the effect of Teflon and Epoxy coating material in the corrosion pits of Stainless Steel, second, to evaluate and compare the effect of dry and wet environment, and third, to evaluate the effect of immersion time. J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(1), March 2016 An evaluation of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 154 MATERIALS AND METHODS Total number of (240) pieces of upper-coated stainless steel orthodontic archwires, (120) selected from Ortho Technology Company, (Brazil) and (120) selected from Hubit Company, (Korea) were tested for corrosion. The specimens used in the present study having a rectangular (0.019 × 0.025 inch) cross section and cut in to pieces of (15 mm) length. These pieces of wires divided in to four groups according to the media they immersed in them. They subdivided into three groups according to the period of immersion. Thirty pieces of each wire’s type were left in dry environment for 1, 7 and 28 days intervals. Another thirty pieces of each wire’s type were immersed in Artificial saliva (pH = 6.75 ± 0.15) (400 mg/LNaCl, 400 mg/L KCl, 795 mg/LCaCl2.2H2O, 690 mg/LNaH2PO4.H2O, 5 mg/L Na2S.9H2O, 1000 mg/L Urea, 500 ml Deionized water, 500ml Distilled water)(17,18,19), Chlorhexidine mouthwash (GSK, Germany, Exp: 06 /2015) and Toothpaste (GSK, UK, Exp: 06 /2015). These wire’s pieces were incubated in covered glass containers at 37C˚ for the entire testing period (20). The corrosion pits measurements made at the following time intervals: 1day, 7 days and 28 days. Corrosion pits measurements were obtained by Atomic Force Microscope (AFM; JPK Nanowizard, Nr: H-01-0086, and JPK Image Processing software, version 3.0; JPK Instruments AG, Berlin, Germany) with a non-contact tip coated with silicon (NCLR-20; NanoWorld, Neuchatel, Switzerland), with a constant force of 48 N/mm and resonance frequency of 190 kHz (figure 1). After preparation, the samples were washed withdistilled water and immersed in 70% ethanol for 4-5 seconds and thenimmersed in acetone (act as a volatile organic solvent) for 8-10 seconds and dried by dryair for one minute. This method of cleaning used to remove all contaminated layerformed on the alloy during storage (21). The artificial saliva was replaced every 7 days with a fresh solution to avoid its saturation with the corrosion products (22,23). The chlorhexidine solution was used according to the manufacturer instruction and the samples were immersed completely in the solution in the test tubes and covered perfectly by theirs covers, shake by the shaker for 1 minute, then they were removed and washed with distilled water, dried by dry air and re-put in the artificial saliva, then incubated at 370C. This procedure would be repeated 2 times daily for (1day, 7 days, and 28 days) intervals (20). The samples of the Toothpaste groups were immersed completely in the paste on a slap for 2minutesAfter the 2 minutes were completed successfully the wires were removed and washed with distilled water, dried by dry air water and re- put in the artificial saliva, then incubated at 37 0C. This procedure would be repeated 3 times daily for (1day, 7 days, and 28 days) intervals (20). Figure 1: Atomic Force Microscope (AFM). Statistical Analysis Data collected analyzed by using relevant software Statistical Package of Social Science (SPSS, Chicago, 21). These data of the corrosion pits for all specimens averaged, and the results analyzed with the following statistics: 1. Descriptive statistics :( mean of corrosion pits and its standard deviation). 2. Inferential statistics: {Independent sample t- test, One Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Least Significant Difference (LSD)}. RESULTS The Effect of Coating Material: Dependent sample of t-test showed non- significant coating type difference in the corrosion pits in dry environment at different intervals and when the wires were immersed in Chlorhexidine for 1 day and in the Toothpaste for 1 day and 7 days. On the other hand, there was highly significant difference when the wires immersed in the remaining media at different intervals (table 1). J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(1), March 2016 An evaluation of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 155 The Effect of the Immersion Media: Analysis of variance difference (ANOVA) has demonstrated a non-significant difference among the media at the first day of immersion of the two wire’s type but showed a highly significant difference at 28 days. On the other hand, it revealed a highly significant media effect difference of Hubit and a non-significant difference of Orthotechnology at 7 days immersion period (table 2). The Effect of the Time Intervals: The time interval has non-significant effect on the corrosion pits at dry environment. Analysis of variance difference (ANOVA) has demonstrated highly significant differences among the different intervals in wet environment except that for Epoxy coated stainless steel at Chlorhexidine (table 3). Table 1: The Effect of Coating Material Difference for Each Wire Immersed in Specific Media for Different Intervals. Media Intervals Descriptive Statistics Company Difference (d.f.=18) Hubit Orthotechnology Mean Pits/ nm S.D. Mean Pits/ nm S.D. Mean Difference t-test p-value Dry 1 day 0.000375 0.000196 0.00039 0.000229 -0.000015 -0.158 0.876 7 days 0.000401 0.000201 0.000351 0.000175 0.000050 0.594 0.560 28 days 0.000355 0.000166 0.000364 0.000228 -0.000009 -0.101 0.921 Artificial Saliva 1 day 0.000403 0.000096 0.000289 0.000071 0.000114 3.029 *0.007 7 days 0.000560 0.000045 0.000297 0.000069 0.000263 10.068 *0.000 28 days 0.001020 0.000239 0.000535 0.000114 0.000485 5.789 *0.000 CHX 1 day 0.000326 0.000171 0.000320 0.000067 0.000006 0.103 0.919 7 days 0.000226 0.000043 0.000321 0.000058 -0.000095 -4.143 *0.001 28 days 0.001285 0.000149 0.000298 0.000105 0.000987 17.129 *0.000 Tooth paste 1 day 0.000379 0.000110 0.000396 0.000159 -0.000017 -0.279 0.784 7 days 0.000267 0.000082 0.000292 0.000027 -0.000025 -0.922 0.369 28 days 0.001290 0.000039 0.000743 0.000126 0.000547 13.096 *0.000 (*) mean highly significant Table 2: The Effect of Different Media on the Corrosion Pits of Different Wires and Intervals. Company Intervals Descriptive Statistics Media difference (d.f.=39) Dry Artificial saliva Chlorhexidine Tooth paste Mean Pits/ nm S.D. Mean Pits/ nm S.D. Mean Pits/ nm S.D. Mean Pits/ nm S.D. F-test p-value Hubit 1 day 0.000375 0.000196 0.000403 0.000096 0.000326 0.000171 0.000379 0.000110 0.471 0.705 7 days 0.000401 0.000201 0.000560 0.000045 0.000226 0.000043 0.000267 0.000082 17.858 *0.000 28 days 0.000355 0.000166 0.001020 0.000239 0.001285 0.000149 0.001290 0.000039 71.677 *0.000 Ortho technology 1 day 0.000390 0.000229 0.000289 0.000071 0.000320 0.000067 0.000396 0.000159 1.277 0.297 7 days 0.000351 0.000175 0.000297 0.000069 0.000321 0.000058 0.000292 0.000027 0.739 0.536 28 days 0.000364 0.000228 0.000535 0.000114 0.000298 0.000105 0.000743 0.000126 17.210 *0.000 (*) mean highly significant Table 3: The Effect of Time of Immersion in Each Media for Each Wire. Media Company Descriptive Statistics Intervals Difference (d.f.=29) 1 day 7 days 28 days Mean Pits/ nm S.D. Mean Pits/ nm S.D. Mean Pits/ nm S.D. F-test p-value Dry Hubit 0.000375 0.000196 0.000401 0.000201 0.000355 0.000166 0.150 0.861 OrthoTechnology 0.00039 0.000229 0.000351 0.000175 0.000364 0.000228 0.088 0.916 Artificial Saliva Hubit 0.000403 0.000096 0.000560 0.000045 0.001020 0.000239 45.200 *0.000 OrthoTechnology 0.000289 0.000071 0.000297 0.000069 0.000535 0.000114 25.564 *0.000 CHX Hubit 0.000326 0.00017 0.000226 0.000043 0.001285 0.000149 193.129 *0.000 OrthoTechnology 0.000320 0.000067 0.000321 0.000058 0.000298 0.000105 0.266 0.768 Tooth Paste Hubit 0.000379 0.000110 0.000267 0.000082 0.001290 0.000039 467.830 *0.000 OrthoTechnology 0.000396 0.000159 0.000292 0.000027 0.000743 0.000126 39.962 *0.000 (*) mean highly significant J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(1), March 2016 An evaluation of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 156 DISCUSSION The Effect of Coating Material The non-significant coating type difference in the corrosion pits in dry environment, in Chlorhexidine for 1 day and in the Toothpaste for 1 day and 7 days may be due to the presence of the protective oxide layer. On the other hand, the highly significant difference when the wires were immersed in the artificial saliva media at different intervals may be attributed to the fact the Teflon coating layer adds a minimal thickness to the archwires while Epoxy coating dose add a more significant thickness. This result agreed with da Silvaa et al. (24) and Khamees (25). The Effect of the Immersion Media The highly significant difference among the media at 28 days of immersion of the two types of wiremay related to some factor or factors that are able to modify the properties of the wires, such as the pH level, wet condition, thickness of coating, the composition of coating and the temperature. On the other hand, the result revealed a highly significant media effect difference of Hubit and a non-significant difference of Orthotechnology at 7 days immersion period.The finding of this study disagreed with Neumann et al. (26) study in which they found Teflon coating (Hubit) prevented the corrosion of the wire completely. The Effect of the Time Intervals The time interval has no effect on the corrosion pits at dry environment. This may related to the constant factors of the environment at this study. Thehighly significant differences among the different intervals at wet environment for the Teflon coated stainless steel wires (Hubit) may be due to rapture of the protective layer. This result agree with Al-Najafy (27) who found that the surface roughness of Teflon coated stainless increased with increased immersion time.The finding of this study disagree with Neumann et al.(26) study. This study also showed non-significant effect of the immersion time for Epoxy coated stainless steel at Chlorhexidine. This may be due to the type, nature and thickness of coating material, which need more time to corrode. REFERENCES 1. Walton DK, Fields HW, Johnston WM, Rosenstiel SF, Firestone AR, Christensen JC. Orthodontic Appliance Preferences of Children and Adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010; 138(6):698.e1-12; discussion 698-9. 2. Jeremiah HG, Bister D, Newton JT. Social Perceptions of Adults Wearing Orthodontic Appliances: A Cross- Sectional Study. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33(5):476-82. 3. Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D. Ex Vivo Surface and Mechanical Properties of Coated Orthodontic Archwires. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30(6): 661-7. 4. Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D. Mechanical Properties of Coated Superelastic Archwires in Conventional and Self-Ligating Orthodontic Brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2010; 137(2):213–7. 5. Aksakalli S, Malkoc S. Esthetic Orthodontic Archwires: Literature Review. J Orthod Res 2013; 1: 2-4. 6. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics. 5th ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2013. 7. Redlich M, Katz A, Rapoport L, Wagner H, Feldman Y, Tenne R. Improved Orthodontic Stainless Steel Wires Coated with Inorganic Fullerene-Like Nanoparticles of WS (2) Impregnated in Electroless Nickel-Phosphorous Film. Dent Mater J 2008; 24: 1640-6. 8. Burstone CJ, Liebler SA, Goldberg AJ. Polyphenylene Polymers as Esthetic Orthodontic Archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011; 139(4 Suppl):e391-8. 9. Quintão CC, Cal-Neto JP, Menezes LM, Elias CN. Force-Deflection Properties of Initial Orthodontic Archwires. World J Orthod 2009; 10(1):29-32. 10. Kaphoor AA, Sundareswaran S. Aesthetic Nickel Titanium Wires—How Much Do They Deliver? Eur J Orthod 2012; 34(5): 603-9. 11. Arango S, Peláez-Vargas A, García C. Coating and Surface Treatments on Orthodontic Metallic Materials. Coatings 2013; 3(1):1-15. 12. Eliades T. Orthodontic Materials Research and Applications: Part 2. Current Status and Projected Future Developments in Materials and Biocompatibility. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007; 131(2):253-62 13. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillip’s Science of Dental Materials. 12th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier Saunders; 2012. 14. Kusy RP. A Review of Contemporary Archwires: Their Properties and Characteristics. Angle Orthod 1997; 67(3):197-207. 15. Regis S Jr, Soares P, Camargo ES, GuarizaFilho O, Tanaka O, Maruo H. Biodegradation of Orthodontic Metallic Brackets and Associated Implications for Friction. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011; 140(4):501-9. 16. Hafez HS, Selim EM, KamelEid FH, Tawfik WA, Al- Ashkar EA, Mostafa YA. Cytotoxicity, Genotoxicity, and Metal Release in Patients with Fixed Orthodontic Appliances: A Longitudinal in-vivo Study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011; 140(3):298-308. 17. Mikulewicz M, Chojnacka K, Woźniak B, Downarowicz P. Release of Metal Ions from Orthodontic Appliances: an in vitro Study. Biol Trace Elem Res.2012 May; 146(2):272-80. 18. Faverani LP, Barao VA, Pires MF, Yuan JC, Sukotjo C, Mathew MT, Assunção WG.Corrosion Kinetics and Topography Analysis of Ti-6Al-4V Alloy Subjected to Different Mouthwash Solutions. Mater SciEng C Mater Biol Appl 2014; 43:1-10. 19. Jaber LC, Rodrigues JA, Amaral FL, França FM, Basting RT, Turssi CP. Degradation of Orthodontic Wires under Simulated Cariogenic and Erosive Condition. Braz Oral Res2014;28(1) J Bagh College Dentistry Vol. 28(1), March 2016 An evaluation of Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry 157 20. SultanZ. Measurements of Depth and Number of Corrosion Pits in Some Types of Orthodontic Wires (An in Vitro Study). A Master Thesis, Department of POP, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, 2008. 21. Oh KT, Kim KN. Ion Release and Cytotoxicity of Stainless Steel Wires. Eur J Orthod 2005; 533–40 22. Elshahawy W, Watanabe I, Koike M. Elemental Ion Release from Four Different Fixed Prosthodontic Materials. Dent Mater 2009; 25(8): 976-81. 23. Khamees A. Comparison of Metal Ions Release and Corrosion Potential from Different Bracket Archwire Combinations (an in vitro study). A Master Thesis, Orthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, 2013. 24. daSilvaa DL, Mattos CT, Simão RA, de Oliveira Ruellas AC. Coating Stability and Surface Characteristics of Esthetic Orthodontic Coated Archwires. Angle Orthod 2013; 83(6): 994-1001 25. Khamees A. Comparison of Metal Ions Release and Corrosion Potential from Different Bracket Archwire combinations (an in vitro study). A Master Thesis, Orthodontics Department, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, 2013. 26. Neumann P, Bourauel C, Jäger A. Corrosion and Permanent Fracture Resistance of Coated and Conventional Orthodontic Wires. J Mater Sci Mater Med. 2002; 13(2):141-7. 27. Al-Najafy Z. The Effect of Artificial Saliva on the Surface Roughness of Orthodontic Arch Wire Materials (an in vitro study). A Master thesis, Department of POP, College of Dentistry, University of Mosul, 2006.