ORIGINAL ARTICLE

In-vitro evaluation of the material

characteristics of stainless steel and
beta-titanium orthodontic wires
Astrid Verstrynge,a Jan Van Humbeeck,b and Guy Willemsc
Leuven, Belgium

Introduction: The exact composition and material properties of the metal alloys used in orthodontics are
usually not identified by or even available from manufacturers. This makes meaningful comparisons between
wires impossible and is unacceptable with regard to biocompatibility issues. The aim of this study was to
investigate the material characteristics of contemporary stainless steel (SS) and beta-titanium (-Ti) wires,
also known as titanium-molybdenum alloy (TMA), for comparison. Methods: Twenty-two different SS and
-Ti wires, preferably straight wires sized 0.43 0.64 mm, (0.017 0.025 in) were tested blindly for wire
dimensions, chemical compositions, bending and tensile properties, and surface characteristics. Results:
Four chemical compositions were found for the -Ti wires: titanium-11.5, molybdenum-6, zirconium-4.5 tin;
titanium-3, aluminum-8, vanadium-6, chromium-4, molybdenum-4, zirconium; titanium-6, aluminum-4,
vanadium, and titanium-45 niobium. The SS wires were of AISI type 304 or the nickel-free variant BioDur
108. All -Ti wires showed high surface roughness values. TMA 02 significantly had the highest E-modulus,
TMA 02 and TMA 11 had the highest 0.2% yield strength, TMA 02 had the highest hardness, and TMA 12
was the most ductile wire of the -Ti wires. All SS wires showed high 0.2% yield strength, SS 10 significantly
had the lowest E-modulus and was the most ductile wire, and SS 08 significantly showed the lowest
hardness values of all SS wires. Conclusions: Significant differences were found between SS and -Ti wires,
but there was little or no difference between the mechanical and physical characteristics tested in each
subgroup. However, the morphological analysis clearly demonstrated that the finishing phase (annealing,
polishing) of the wires production process lacks the quality one would expect with regard to good
mechanical properties and biocompatibility issues. Accurate specifications are urgently needed concerning
the quality of orthodontic wires on the market. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:460-70)

T
hroughout the world, standard regulations as the
basis for quality and control of products on
human health and the environment are of the
utmost importance. Although control regimens differ
across the world, the requirement of a relevant standard
is a positive factor both for certification and for
customers. Metal alloys of greatly varying compositions
are daily used in orthodontic practices for the correction of
malocclusions in patients. Most of the time, the exact
compositions and material properties are not specified
From Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
a
Orthodontist, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, School of
Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery.
b
Professor, Department of Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering.
c
Associate professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, School
of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery.
Reprint requests to: Guy Willems, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of
Medicine, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery,
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium;
e-mail, guy.willems@med.kuleuven.be.
Submitted, November 2004; revised and accepted, December 2004.
0889-5406/$32.00
Copyright 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.12.030
460
and, in some cases, are even not available from the
manufacturers. Today, with biocompatibility issues fre-
quently discussed and official regulations for manufac-
turing and vending materials for clinical use strongly
restricted, this is unacceptable.
Two of the most frequently used materials for
orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances are stain-
less steel (SS) and beta-titanium (-Ti), also known as
titanium-molybdenum alloy (TMA).
Over several decades, engineering technologies
have developed over 100 different compositions of SS,
used in many applications and various fields. The alloy
of SS most frequently used in contemporary medical
practice is American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI)
type 316L, which contains molybdenum and thus is
more resistant to pit corrosion than AISI type 304 used
for orthodontic materials.1,2 It is not clear what the
composition is from the manufacturers information
leaflets of orthodontic SS materials and, even more
important, how the alloys were processed. This is
important because the specific handling of the SS
during production significantly determines its mechan-
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems 461
Volume 130, Number 4

Table I. Archwires included in study

Sample
number Distributor Supplier Material

Beta-titanium
TMA 01 3M Unitek 3M Unitek (Diegem, Belgium) Beta III titanium (PA)
TMA 02 TP Orthodontics TP Orthodontics (LaPorte, Ind) Ti-molium wire (SW)
TP Orthodontics Ltd Europe (Hasselt, Belgium)
TMA 03 Ormco Ormco (Glendora, Calif) TMA (SW)
TMA 04 Ormco Ormco (Glendora, Calif) TMA low friction (PA)
TMA 05 Ormco Ormco (Glenora, Calif) Titanium niobium/FA (PA)
TMA 06 Highland Metals Highland Metals (San Jose, Calif) Beta blue (PA)
TMA 07 G&H Wire Company G&H Wire Company (Greenwood, Ind) Titanmoly (SW)
TMA 08 Ortho Organizers Orthotrends (Gent, Belgium) Beta CNA (SW)
TMA 09 GAC Orthotrends (Gent, Belgium) Resolve (SW)
TMA 10 Rocky Mountain Orthodontics Europe Modern Orthodontic Supplies (Brussels, Belgium) Bendaloy (SW)
TMA 11 American Orthodontics American Orthodontics (Brasschaat, Belgium) Beta titanium (SW)
TMA 12 Dentaurum Dentaurum (Ispringen, Germany) Rematitan special (SW)
Stainless steel
SS 01 3M Unitek 3M Unitek (Diegem, Belgium) Resilient rectangular wire (SW)
SS 02 TP Orthodontics TP Orthodontics (LaPorte, Ind) Shiny bright wire (SW)
TP Orthodontics Ltd Europe (Hasselt, Belgium)
SS 03 Ormco Ormco (Glendora, Calif) Stainless steel (SW)
SS 04 G&H Wire Company G&H Wire Company (Greenwood, Ind) Stainless steel (SW)
SS 05 Ortho Organizers Orthotrends (Gent, Belgium) Straight wire (SW)
SS 06 GAC Orthotrends (Gent, Belgium) Nubryte gold wire (SW)
SS 07 3M Unitek 3M Unitek (Monrovia, Calif) Hi-T II (SW)
SS 08 Rocky Mountains Orthodontics Europe Modern Orthodontic Supplies (Brussels, Belgium) Tru-chrome SS (resilient) (SW)
SS 09 American Orthodontics American Orthodontics (Brasschaat, Belgium) Stainless steel wire (SW)
SS 10 Dentaurum Dentaurum (Ispringen, Germany) Noninium (SW)

PA, Preformed archwire; SW, straight wire.

ical and physical properties. Despite this lack of infor-
mation, SS wires are often considered a reference
material for comparing the characteristics of other types
of orthodontic wire alloys, such as -Ti.
The first article on the use of -Ti, or TMA, in
orthodontics dates back to 1979.3 Only 2 versions of the
-Ti family, TMA and Titanium Niobium (both, Ormco,
Glendora, Calif), were available in the past. Recently,
after the expiration of a patent on TMA, this alloy family
expanded drastically. Articles on the physical, mechan-
ical, and chemical characteristics of the original TMA
were numerous during the 1980s. -Ti is described as
having an excellent balance of properties, including
high spring-back, low stiffness, high formability, and
the ability of direct welding.3-11 However, a drawback
is its high coefficient of friction.12-19 The characteristics
of the newly available -Ti wires are scarcely de-
scribed, except for a recent article by Johnson,19 who
only compared and ranked the stiffness of the different
dimensions of these new wires.
The deficiency in publishing the product properties
by the various manufacturers and vendors of orthodon-
tic wires was the reason for this study. Our aim was to
study some in-vitro material characteristics, including
wire dimensions, chemical compositions, bending and
tensile properties, and surface characteristics, of the
-Ti archwires currently available for orthodontic use
and to compare them with the characteristics of SS
wires.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The 22 different SS and -Ti (TMA) wires evalu-
ated in this study are listed in Table I. The wires were
provided by their manufacturers in response to our
written request to participate by supplying samples of
SS and TMA wires, sized 0.43 0.64 mm (0.017
0.025 in). Preferably, straight pieces of wires were
used, but preformed archwires were acceptable if the
material was available only in this form. All wire
testing and data processing were done blindly by 1
investigator (A.V.).
Dimensions of all wires were determined with an
electronic sliding calliper, accurate to 0.001 mm. The
archwire dimensions were recorded randomly for 5
samples of the same lot. Each wire was measured 5
times in both width and thickness.
A scanning electron microscope (SEM) (FEG-Philips
XL-30, Philips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) equipped
462 Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems
with energy dispersive x-ray analysis was used to
determine the surface chemical composition of all
test-wire lots. Based on this analysis, it was assumed
that the bulk composition was similar to the surface
compositions within the limits of accuracy. A fracto-
graphic image was obtained, and the chemical compo-
sition was determined automatically in percentages.
The SEM analysis is less accurate than 0.1%, but it
gives a resolution that was reliable for this study.
By using a testing machine with a 1 kN load cell
(4467, Instron, Bucks, United Kingdom), the straight
wires and straight segments of the preformed archwires
were tested in 3-point bending. All wires were placed
with the 0.64-mm side on the supporting contacts, and
a distance of 15 mm was measured. The crosshead
speed, and as a result the specimen loading, was set at
1 mm per minute. After a descent of 5 mm, the
crosshead turned back to the initial position. Measure-
ments were made only during loading and not during
unloading of the specimen. All -Ti wires were tested
5 times and all SS wires 3 times. The flexural Youngs
modulus (MPa) and standard deviations were obtained
after each test run.
The same machine was set up for tensile testing. A
minimum wire length of 30 cm was required to clamp
the sample into the wire grips. For that reason, the short
straight segments of the preformed archwires (TMA 01,
04, 05, and 06) could not be tested. Each wire was
positioned in the grips, and a distance of 60 mm was
measured. Before clamping, the wire was pulled until a
positive load was applied by the machine. A light-
weight strain gauge extensometer (Instron), with a
distance of 50 mm between both blades, was finally
placed over the clamped wire. All -Ti and SS wires
were tested 3 times. The tensional Youngs modulus
(MPa) and standard deviations were calculated.
By means of the obtained stress-strain curve, the
ultimate tensile strength was determined graphically.
The 0.2% tensile yield strength (YS) was calculated as
the stress at 0.2% permanent strain. The strain at
tensional fracture was calculated as the percentage of
deformation at the moment of fracture (l/l, with l
the elongation measured by the extensometer during the
tensile test, and l the total length of the wire between
the blades of the extensometer, being 50 mm).
The surfaces of the SS and TMA wires, as delivered
by the manufacturers, and the fracture surfaces, ob-
tained after tensile testing of the wires, were scanned
morphologically with the SEM. Images were made at
200, 1000, 2500, 5000, and 10,000 times magnification.
Surface roughness was measured with the Rank
Taylor Hobson profilometer (Taylor Hobson Ltd., Le-
icester, England). A diamond point of 3 m handled
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2006
each straight wire or straight segment of a preformed
archwire along the length of the 0.64-mm side. The
software of the profilometer was preset with a rough-
ness filter with a 0.25 m cut-off length, a Gaussian
filter type, and a parameter selection of Ra (the arith-
metic mean of the absolute departures of the roughness
profile from the mean line) and Rt (the maximum
peak-to-valley height of the roughness profile). For
very irregular surface patterns, Ra and Rt values give
the best illustration of surface roughness. Each wire
was measured 3 times over a distance of 4 mm.
Surface hardness was tested with the Vickers hard-
ness testing method, applying a 50.00 gram-force for 30
seconds. After embedding the wires in Technovit 2004
(Heraeus Kulzer GmbH, Hanau, Germany), sanding
and polishing with a 0.25 m grain size solution of
silicon dioxide, each wire was submitted to the Vickers
hardness test set-up 5 times.
Descriptive statistics, including means and standard
deviations, were calculated for the thickness and width
measurements, flexural and tensional Youngs modu-
lus, Vickers hardness, and surface roughness (Ra and
Rt). For the same data, analysis of variance (ANOVA)
was carried out by using the generalized linear models
(GLM) procedure of the SAS statistical software pack-
age (SAS, Cary, NC), and statistically significant find-
ings (P .01) were highlighted by using the Tukey
studentized range (HSD) test.
RESULTS
When comparing the obtained calliper measure-
ments as percentages of the manufacturers stated wire
dimensions (0.43 0.64 mm), all -Ti wires showed
deviations of less than 3% in both width and thickness,
except for the thickness measurements of TMA 02
(4.09%). All SS wires deviated less than 1.00% in
width and thickness, except for the thickness measure-
ments of SS 05 (2.09%) and SS 03 (1.77%) (Tables II
and III).
On average, all -Ti wires showed slightly less
accuracy in thickness (average deviation of 1.56%) and
width (1.12%) compared with the SS wires (0.85% and
0.43%, respectively).
Most -Ti and SS wires had on average larger
dimensions in thickness and smaller dimensions in width
compared with the standard size of 0.43 0.64 mm.
All examined -Ti wires could be divided into 4
groups of chemical compositions, listed in Table IV.
The examined SS wires were of the 18-8 austenitic
type, AISI 304. Only SS 10 was a nickel-free variant,
with mainly manganese, molybdenum, and chromium
as substituting elements, known as BioDur 108, ASTM
F2229, or UNS S29108.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems 463
Volume 130, Number 4

Table II. Averaged calliper measurements of TMA wire samples, based on 5 wire tests
Average thickness Average width Deviation in thickness Deviation in width
(mm) SD (mm) SD from 0.43 mm (%) from 0.64 mm (%)

TMA 01 0.438 0.002 0.639 0.001 1.91 0.16

TMA 02 0.448 0.001 0.639 0.002 4.09 0.09
TMA 03 0.437 0,003 0.624 0,004 1.72 2.50
TMA 04 0.438 0.001 0.624 0.002 1.95 2.44
TMA 05 0.434 0.003 0.633 0.003 0.84 1.13
TMA 06 0.433 0.001 0.636 0.001 0.70 0.66
TMA 07 0.429 0.007 0.630 0.008 0.23 1.53
TMA 08 0.443 0.002 0.630 0.004 3.02 1.59
TMA 09 0.435 0.001 0.643 0.001 1.21 0.44
TMA 10 0.433 0.002 0.635 0.001 0.70 0.72
TMA 11 0.439 0.008 0.650 0.004 2.19 1.59
TMA 12 0.431 0.011 0.636 0.003 0.19 0.56
Average (%) Average (%)
1.56 1.12

Table III. Averaged calliper measurements of SS wire samples, based on 5 wire testings
Average thickness Average width Deviation in thickness Deviation in width
(mm) SD (mm) SD from 0.43 mm (%) from 0.64 mm (%)

SS 01 0.433 0.000 0.641 0.000 0.65 0.13

SS 02 0.432 0.002 0.34 0.003 0.51 0.91
SS 03 0.438 0.002 0.638 0.001 1.77 0.38
SS 04 0.429 0.002 0.639 0.003 0.14 0.19
SS 05 0.439 0.001 0.638 0.001 2.09 0.28
SS 06 0.434 0.002 0.641 0.002 0.84 0.16
SS 07 0.434 0.000 0.641 0.000 0.98 0.19
SS 08 0.433 0.002 0.636 0.003 0.60 0.59
SS 09 0.432 0.004 0.636 0.004 0.51 0.69
SS 10 0.428 0.001 0.635 0.002 0.42 0.75
Average (%) Average (%)
0.85 0.43

Table IV. Composition of -Ti and SS alloys (%)

Ti-11.5, Mo-6, Zr-4.5, Ti-3, Al-8, V-6, Cr-4, 18 Cr-8, Ni-2, Mn-1, 23 Mn-21, Cr-1, Mo 18 Cr-12, Ni-2, Mo-2,
Sn Beta III Mo-4, Zr Beta C Ti-6, Al-4, V Ti-45 Nb Si (0.08C) (0.10Ni) Mn-1, Si (0.03C)

alloy46 alloy41,46 - alloy41 alloy SS AISI type 30447 Nickel-free SS ASTM SS AISI type 316L
type F22291 (low carbon)47
TMA 01 TMA 06 TMA 02 TMA 05 SS 01 SS 10 medical devices
TMA 03 SS 02
TMA 04 SS 03
(with nitrogen ion
implantation)
TMA 07 SS 04
TMA 08 SS 05
TMA 09 SS 06
TMA 10 SS 07
TMA 11 SS 08
TMA 12 SS 09

The flexural Youngs moduli of the -Ti wires 184 GPa. SS 10 had significantly the lowest modulus
ranged from 65 to 100 GPa. TMA 02 had significantly (P .01) (Table V).
the highest E-modulus of the -Ti wires. The flexural TMA 02 had a significantly higher tensional Youngs
Youngs moduli of the SS wires ranged from 150 to modulus than the other -Ti wires, which ranged from
464 Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2006

Table V. Flexural and tensile properties ( straight segments of preformed archwires were too short to be
positioned in grips for tensile testing)
Mean flexural
Youngs modulus Mean tensional Youngs Mean tensional 0.2% Spring-back ratio Ultimate tensile Strain at tensional
(GPa) SD modulus (GPa) SD yield strength (MPa) YS/E (.103) strength (MPa) fracture (%)

-titanium
TMA 01 66 1 (f-g)
TMA 02 100 1 (a) 93 1 (l) 1254 13 1371 2.7
TMA 03 71 2 (e) 70 1 (m-n) 926 13 1161 3.3
TMA 04 73 4 (e)
TMA 05 79 2 (d)
TMA 06 88 1 (b)
TMA 07 80 1 (c-d) 64 2 (p) 772 12 940 3.0
TMA 08 70 1 (e-f) 71 1 (m-n) 769 11 1192 4.0
TMA 09 65 1 (g) 67 1(o-p) 875 13 1281 3.3
TMA 10 78 3 (d) 68 1 (n-o) 927 14 1066 3.4
TMA 11 84 3 (c) 72 1 (m) 1011 14 1090 3.3
TMA 12 78 2(d) 70 2 (n-m) 848 12 930 5.2
Stainless steel
SS 01 168 2 (i) 175 5 (q-r-s-t) 1832 10 2170 1.9
SS 02 158 4 (j) 166 5 (s-t) 1670 10 1926 1.6
SS 03 167 1 (i) 166 1 (s-t) 1699 10 1986 2.0
SS 04 158 4 (j) 170 3 (r-s-t) 1543 9 1846 1.7
SS 05 171 1 (i) 174 4 (q-r-s-t) 1966 11 2153 1.6
SS 06 179 3 (h) 179 1 (q-r-t) 1791 10 2218 1.8
SS 07 184 2 (h) 184 2 (q-r) 1894 10 2345 1.8
SS 08 166 1 (i) 166 5 (t) 1631 10 1939 1.7
SS 09 178 3 (h) 180 2 (q-r-t) 1884 10 2165 1.7
SS 10 151 2 (k) 166 1 (t) 1556 9 1813 3.7

Means with same letter in parentheses indicate same Tukey group and no significant difference (P .01).

64 to 72 GPa. This was 2 to 3 times lower than the
tensional moduli of the SS wires, which ranged from
166 to 184 GPa.
The tensile 0.2% YS of the -Ti wires was 769 to 1254
MPa. The highest values were measured for TMA 02 (1254
MPa) and TMA 11 (1011 MPa). All SS wires showed
very high 0.2% YS, ranging from 1543 to 1966 MPa.
We found that the ultimate tensile strength of the SS
wires was much higher than that of the -Ti wires. The
values for -Ti wires ranged from 930 MPa (TMA 12)
to 1371 MPa (TMA 02); for SS wires, they ranged from
1813 MPa (SS 10) to 2345 MPa (SS 07).
Ductile materials demonstrate much plastic defor-
mation before fracture. The -Ti wires (2.7%-5.2%)
seemed twice as ductile as the SS wires (1.6%-3.7%).
TMA 12 (5.2%) was the most ductile -Ti, and SS 10
(3.7%) was the most ductile SS wire.
All SEM images of the fractured SS and -Ti
surfaces show a so-called ductile fracture. A ductile
crack moves slowly and is accompanied by much
plastic deformation. Numerous microvoids and dimples
arise, and a rough and irregular fracture surface is
created (Figs 1 and 2). Precipitates and inclusions,
which cause the fracture, can be seen on the fracture
surfaces. Examples are shown in Figures 3 and 4.
Irregular surfaces with lengthwise tracks were
found on all SS and -Ti wires. Crosswise tracks,
surface crevices, pits, and elevations have a specific
pattern for each wire type (Figs 5-8). Often, the -Ti wires
had material remnants on the surfaces (Figs 9 and 10).
With an Ra value below 0.05 m, all SS wires had
a low surface roughness, although Rt showed the
highest roughness peaks or dips between 0.17 and 0.97
m. The lowest Ra values were found for TMA 05
(0.08 m) and TMA 06 (0.7 m). This was signifi-
cantly lower than all other -Ti wires, showing very
rough surfaces with Ra values between 0.11 and 0.18
m. The highest -Ti roughness peak or dip (Rt) was
2.78 m (TMA 09), but this is not significantly
different from the Rt values for TMA 01, 10, 11, and 12
(Table VI).
The Vickers hardness values of the SS wires ranged
from 239.19 to 298.11 kg per square millimeter and
were 1.5 to 3 times higher than the Vickers hardness
values of the -Ti wires, which were 101.60 to 190.00
kg per square millimeter. SS 08 had significantly the
lowest surface hardness of all SS wires. Of all -Ti
wires, the titanium-niobium TMA 05 showed signifi-
cantly the lowest and TMA 02 significantly the highest
surface hardness.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 130, Number 4
Fig 1. SEM micrograph showing ductile fracture of SS
04 at 2000 magnification.
Fig 2. SEM micrograph showing ductile fracture of
TMA 07 at 2000 magnification.
DISCUSSION
The present regulatory system for general dental
materials, instruments, and equipment is based on the
International Standard Organization (ISO), carried out
by ISO technical committees. It is transformed to
European standards by the Comit Europen de Nor-
malisation. Each European country makes adaptations
on the national level. In the United States, the American
National Standard Institute, in cooperation with the
American Dental Association (ADA), grants the na-
tional standards. They formulate standard requirements
for composition, packaging, labelling, and health and
safety aspects for dental products in general, but the
transmission of these standards to the speciality of
orthodontics is not clear. The only orthodontic specifi-
cation is given in ADA No. 32 (revised December
Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems 465
Fig 3. Fracture of SS 02, visualized by SEM at 2000
magnification.
Fig 4. Fracture of TMA 08, visualized by SEM at 2000
magnification.
2001), which contains a superficial description of orth-
odontic wires in general and gives no exact information
on physical, mechanical, chemical, or surface proper-
ties. The ISO is presently working on the first edition of
the international standard for orthodontic wires,
ISO/CD 15841. Moreover, the fulfilment of these
requirements is not obligatory for manufacturers or
vendors. All manufacturers can formulate their own
standards for their products. One wire lot can differ
from the next lot from the same manufacturer. In this
study, only 1 lot per sample was evaluated. Information
about the processing of the wires (wire drawing, eg,
reduction per pass, number of passes, lubrication ma-
terials, heat treatments) is proprietary to each manufac-
turer and was not available for this study. Nevertheless,
this information is important because the processing
466 Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems
Fig 5. Wire surface of SS 05 by SEM at 1000
magnification.
Fig 6. Wire surface of SS 02 by SEM at 1000
magnification.
(cold reduction, annealing) during the production of
orthodontic wires has an important influence on their
mechanical properties.20-22
The dimensions of materials such as archwires and
brackets might be smaller than or exceed the dimen-
sions stated by the manufacturers.14,23-25 Orthodontic
wires and brackets are marketed without exact infor-
mation on the tolerances for height and width dimen-
sions. Wires with rectangular or square cross sections
are manufactured from round wires, by using 2 pairs of
rollers positioned at right angles. Thus, these wires
inevitably are rounded at the corners,2 reducing the
dimensions of the wires and their effectiveness, espe-
cially when torque is required.14,25-28 In this study, the
maximum deviations in dimensions were 4.09% and
2.09%, respectively, for the -Ti and SS wires, and all
showed on average larger dimensions in thickness and
smaller dimensions in width. This is within clinically
accepted norms, although these exceeded dimensions
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2006
Fig 7. Wire surface of TMA 03 by SEM at 1000
magnification.
Fig 8. Wire surface of TMA 11 by SEM at 1000
magnification.
might have implications on friction. With respect to the
edge bevel, no information was given by the manufac-
turers.
An additional confusion concerning wire dimen-
sions is the conversion from inches to millimeters. All
manufacturers mention 0.017 0.025 in, and some of
them add the metric measurements of 0.43 0.64 mm.
In this study, all wire dimensions and calculations were
in millimeters, with accuracy of 0.01 mm. Greater
accuracy for data processing seemed unnecessary for
more refined conclusions on wire dimension deviations.
Chemical composition
By using the SEM, the microstructure of a polished
and etched metal or alloy specimen can be visualized.
Atoms, ions, and molecules are arranged in certain
3-dimensional patterns, called crystals, grains, or
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 130, Number 4
Fig 9. Material remnants on surface of TMA 02 by SEM
at 2500 magnification.
phases. An alloy can be composed of at least 1 phase
and can undergo phase transformation, like unalloyed
titanium, which has 2 forms: at low temperatures, the
crystallographic arrangement is that of hexagonal
close-packed ( phase), and, at high temperatures, the
arrangement is body centered cubic ( phase).
Titanium alloys can be divided into 3 main groups: ,
-, and alloys. The crystallographic form depends
on the chemical composition and the processing of the
alloy. It takes part in determining the physical and
mechanical properties of the material. Certain alloying
additions, such as iron, molybdenum, vanadium, and
chromium stabilize the phase in titanium alloys and,
when present in sufficient amounts, allow for the phase
at room temperature. The zirconium, tin, or zinc in the
alloy composition contributes to increased strength and
hardness, and this presence prevents the formation of
an phase, which embrittles the alloy, during wire
processing.21,29,30 All examined wires in this study
were alloys, except for TMA 02, which was an -
alloy. An interesting feature of the -Ti wires was the
absence of nickel. The corrosion resistance of -Ti is
due to the presence of a thin, adherent, passivating
surface layer of titanium oxide.2
Ion implantation (TMA 04) is a process during
which nitrogen and other gas ions penetrate into the
surface of the wire at high energy, building up a
structure that consists of both the original wire and a
thin layer of compounds (titanium-nitrogen) on the
surface and the immediate subsurface. This layer is
extremely hard and creates a considerable compressive
force in the material.31,32
In 2000, titanium niobium (TMA 05) was introduced
as a new finishing wire. According to the manufacturers
product information, titanium niobium is soft and easy
Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems 467
Fig 10. Material remnants on surface of TMA 05 by
SEM at 2500 magnification.
to form, and has a stiffness 20% lower than TMA and
70% lower than SS.33
The SS wires used in orthodontics are classified as
AISI type 304. In this series, SS had 18% to 20%
chromium, 8% to 11% nickel, and the maximum
amounts of carbon, manganese, and silicon at 0.08%,
2%, and 1%, respectively.2,34 The chromium in the SS
forms a thin, adherent passivating oxide layer that
provides corrosion resistance by blocking the diffusion
of oxygen to the underlying alloy. A minimum of 12%
chromium is required to impart the necessary corrosion
resistance in these alloys.2
Mechanical properties
The mechanical properties of orthodontic wires are
determined by the chemical composition and the mi-
crostructure, which is affected by the manufacturing
processes.4 Laboratory tests do not necessarily reflect
the clinical situations to which wires are usually sub-
jected, but they provide a basis for comparison of
different wires.11 It is discussed in the literature that the
uniform bending moment between the 2 inner loading
points of the 4-point bending test is preferable above
the linear variation of the moment during the 3-point
bending method, when the identification of structural
weakness is featured.35 Because the bending test in our
study did not aim for fracture, 3-point bending was
performed.
Although the properties required in an orthodontic
wire vary depending on its application, generally, the
desirable mechanical characteristics are high spring-back,
low stiffness, good formability, and low friction.4,11
The modulus of elasticity (E) describes the resis-
tance to elastic deformation and determines the magni-
tude of force delivered by a wire activated within the
elastic range. The relatively high flexural and tensional
468 Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2006

Table VI. Surface properties

Mean Vickers hardness
Roughness Ra (m) SD Roughness Rt (m) SD (kg/mm2) SD

-titanium
TMA 01 0.15 0.01 (m-n) 2.47 0.12 (t-u-v) 166 3 (b)
TMA 02 0.18 0.02 (m) 1.69 0.16 (v-w-x) 190 4 (a)
TMA 03 0.15 0.01 (n) 1.80 0.21 (u-v-w-x) 166 2 (b)
TMA 04 0.12 0.01 (o) 1.43 0.17 (w-x) 165 1 (b)
TMA 05 0.08 0.01 (p) 1.27 0.29 (w-x) 102 1 (e)
TMA 06 0.07 0.01 (p) 1.15 0.14 (x) 165 7 (b)
TMA 07 0.17 0.01 (m-n) 1.86 0.24 (u-v-w-x) 152 1 (c)
TMA 08 0.15 0.01 (n) 1.92 0.19 (u-v-w-x) 167 2 (b)
TMA 09 0.17 0.01 (m-n) 2.78 0.28 (t) 165 2 (b)
TMA 10 0.17 0.01 (m-n) 2.62 0.68 (t-u) 156 4 (c)
TMA 11 0.17 0.02 (m-n) 2.51 0.42 (t-u-v) 155 4 (c)
TMA 12 0.11 0.01 (o) 2.01 0.38 (t-u-v-w) 138 1 (d)
Stainless steel
SS 01 0.01 0.00 (s) 0.19 0.08 () 294 6 (f-g)
SS 02 0.03 0.01 (r) 0.44 0.17 (z-) 272 4 (h-i)
SS 03 0.03 0.01 (r) 0.97 0.38 (y) 282 8 (g-h)
SS 04 0.01 0.00 (s) 0.17 0.05 () 252 6 (k)
SS 05 0.05 0.00 (q) 0.55 0.14 (y-z-) 292 5 (f-g)
SS 06 0.03 0.00 (r) 0.70 0.02 (y-z) 288 7 (f-g)
SS 07 0.03 0.00 (r) 0.35 0.01 (z-) 298 8 (f)
SS 08 0.05 0.01 (q) 0.71 0.16 (y-z) 239 7 (l)
SS 09 0.03 0.00 (r) 0.40 0.03 (z-) 260 7 (j-k)
SS 10 0.05 0.00 (q) 0.66 0.25 (y-z) 270 5 (i-j)

Means with same letter in parentheses indicate same Tukey group and no significant difference (P .01).

Youngs moduli of the SS wires in this study corre- Table VII. Overview of literature on mechanical and
spond with previous studies.2-4,7,8,11,19,36-38 This high physical properties of original TMA
stiffness of SS wires necessitates the use of wires with
Ultimate
small cross-sections37,39 or increasing wire length by Youngs Yield Spring-back tensile
the multi-loop technique4,37,40 to avoid creating exces- modulus strength ratio YS/E strength
sive clinical forces. The smaller wires result in a poorer (GPa) (MPa) (.103) (MPa)
fit in the bracket slot and cause loss of control during Burstone and 65 1172 18
tooth movement. The flexural and tensional Youngs Goldberg3,4,8
modulus of the -Ti wires is less than half that of SS. Brantley2 62-69 690-970 9-11
This is in accordance with many other studies on the Proffit and Fields37 72
Kusy (review)38 65-70 520-1380 690-1500
original TMA, summarized in Table VII.2,4,7,8,36-38
Kapila and Sachdeva 58-86 450-1170 10-18
TMA 02 showed significantly the highest E-modulus of (review)11
all the -Ti wires; this can be explained by the phase Asgharnia and 60-79 690-965
in this - alloy. Brantley36
The YS can be reported as the stress value corre- Drake et al7 69 961 14
sponding to 0.1% or 0.2% permanent strain. This
makes comparison with previous studies more difficult.
Sometimes the very small amount of permanent defor- wires. This indicates that all SS wires in this study were
mation used for the determination of YS is not speci- not heat treated (annealed) after cold working. From a
fied. Because the 0.2% YS is slightly higher than the clinical viewpoint, the major purpose of heat treating
0.1% YS, the results of our study are close to previous SS orthodontic appliances is to minimize breakage by
investigations on SS orthodontic wires and the original eliminating residual stresses in the material, rather than
TMA (Table VII).2,3,7,8,11,36,38 Extensive cold working to achieve significant decreases in YS.2
increases the YS of austenitic SS AISI type 304 from The ratio yield strength to modulus (YS/E) is a
about 300 MPa, as described for the standard annealed good measure for the spring-back of a material and
SS,41,42 to over 1500 MPa, as measured for orthodontic indicates that SS has a relatively low maximum elastic
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 130, Number 4
deflection, or spring-back.2-4,7,8,11 This implies that SS
wires produce high forces that dissipate over short time
periods, thus requiring more frequent archwire changes
or the multi-loop technique. Because of the much lower
value of the elastic modulus and despite lower values
for YS,2,4,7,8,11,36,38 -Ti wires have a higher spring-
back (YS/E) and thus maintain more constant forces
during deactivation (Table VII).2,4,7,8,11 The highest
values for YS in this study were measured for TMA 02
and TMA 11; this indicates a high level of cold
processing of these alloys.
The results for the ultimate tensile strength of SS
and -Ti in this study are in the same range as those
found in a previous study on the original TMA.38
Clearly, SS wires can sustain a much higher maximum
load than -Ti wires before fracture.
The strain at tensional fracture is a measure for the
amount of permanent deformation a wire withstands
before failing, the so-called formability of the wire.37 In
the study by Goldberg and Burstone,3 it was shown that
the formability of the original TMA is similar to that of
SS with a 90 bending test.4 In our study, however,
formability was calculated as the percentage of defor-
mation at the moment of fracture (l/l). The high
formability of -Ti wires, due to the phase, provides
the ability to bend the wire into desired configurations
such as loops, coils, and stops without fracturing the
wire.2,4,11 However, loops that are commonly used with
SS to lower the load deflection rate of the appliance
might not be necessary for -Ti wires because of their
low modulus of elasticity.11 Despite this excellent
formability of the -Ti alloy, it has been reported that
some batches of TMA archwires are susceptible to
fracture during clinical manipulation.2
Surface properties
According to this study, SEM examination of TMA
orthodontic wires by other investigators has shown
relatively rough surfaces that are attributed to adher-
ence or cold welding by the titanium to the dies or
rollers during processing.2 In this study, all -Ti wires
showed rough surfaces (Ra and Rt), except for TMA 05
and TMA 06. Along with localized sites of cold
welding or adherence by the wire to the bracket slots,
this roughness might contribute to high values of
archwire-bracket sliding friction.2,12-18 Also because of
these rough surfaces, those -Ti wire alloys are most
likely to have surface alterations during clinical use. A
recent in-vivo study on the surface characterization of
retrieved nickel-titanium orthodontic archwires de-
scribes increased biofilm formation, surface delamina-
tion, and pitting corrosion. These alterations might
profoundly modify the reactivity of the wire surfaces
Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems 469
with undetermined effects on the corrosion resistance,
nickel dissolution, and frictional resistance of the arch-
wires.43 A standard for the surface quality of orthodon-
tic products is therefore urgently recommended.44
It is described that the nitrogen ion implantation
technique affords an extremely hard surface layer that
would improve fatigue resistance and ductility and
reduce the coefficient of friction in vitro.31,32 However,
an in-vivo study reported that the rate of orthodontic
space closure was not significantly different for ion-
implanted and non-ion-implanted TMA wires and that
the rate of space closure was similar to that reported for
SS.45 In this study, the hardness of the ion-implanted
TMA 04 was high, but not notably or significantly
different from other -Ti wires; this contrasts with the
extremely hard surface layer described by the man-
ufacturer.31,32 The surface hardness of TMA 05 (tita-
nium-niobium) was significantly the lowest, in accor-
dance to the manufacturers product information.33 The
hardness of TMA 02 was significantly the highest of all
-Ti wires; this can be explained by cold processing of
the alloy.
CONCLUSIONS
Manufacturers are trying hard to supply products
that differ from those of competing companies, but the
clinician is not really aware of the quality of the
orthodontic wires. This study showed that there are
several differences between -Ti and SS wires. How-
ever, most worrying is the scant attention that is given
to the finishing processes (annealing, polishing) of
orthodontic wires. Although good mechanical proper-
ties and excellent biocompatibility (wear and corrosion)
are the results of precise and competent finishing, no
manufacturer seems to be ready to spend time and
money in this most important stage of processing.
There is an urgent need for accurate specifications for
orthodontic wires on the market.
REFERENCES
1. Davis JR. Biomaterials for dental applications. In: Davis JR,
editor. Handbook of materials for medical devices. Metal Parks,
Ohio: ASM International; 2003. p. 193-220.
2. Brantley WA. Orthodontic wires. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T,
editiors. Orthodontic materials: scientific and clinical aspects.
Stuttgart, New York: Thieme; 2001. p. 77-103.
3. Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ. An evaluation of beta titanium alloys
for use in orthodontic appliances. J Dent Res 1979;58:593-600.
4. Burstone CJ, Goldberg AJ. Beta titanium: a new orthodontic
alloy. Am J Orthod 1980;77:121-32.
5. Kusy RP. Comparison of nickel-titanium and beta titanium wire
sizes to conventional orthodontic arch wire materials. Am J
Orthod 1981;79:625-9.
470 Verstrynge, Van Humbeeck, and Willems
6. Kusy RP, Greenberg AR. Comparison of the elastic properties of
nickel-titanium and beta titanium archwires. Am J Orthod
1982;82:199-205.
7. Drake SR, Wayne DM, Powers JM, Asgar K. Mechanical
properties of orthodontic wires in tension, bending and torsion.
Am J Orthod 1982;82:206-10.
8. Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ. Status report on beta-titanium orth-
odontic wires. Council on Dental Materials, Instruments, and
Equipment. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;105:684-5.
9. Kusy RP. On the use of nomograms to determine the elastic
property ratios of orthodontic archwires. Am J Orthod 1983;83:
374-81.
10. Donovan MT, Jing-Jong Lin J, Brantley WA, Conover JP. Weld-
ability of beta titanium archwires. Am J Orthod 1984;85:207-16.
11. Kapila S, Sachdeva R. Mechanical properties and clinical appli-
cations of orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1989;96:100-9.
12. Mendes K, Rossouw PE. Friction: validation of manufacturers
claim. Semin Orthod 2003;9:236-50.
13. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio
F. Evaluation of friction of conventional and metal-insert ce-
ramic brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:403-9.
14. Cash A, Curtis R, Garrigia-Majo D, McDonald F. A comparative
study of the static and kinetic frictional resistance of titanium
molybdenum alloy archwires in stainless steel brackets. Eur
J Orthod 2004;26:105-11.
15. Garner LD, Allai WW, Moore BK. A comparison of frictional force
during simulated canine retraction of a continuous edgewise arch-
wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986;90:199-203.
16. Tidy DC. Frictional forces in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:249-54.
17. Kapila S, Angolkar PV, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS. Evalua-
tion of friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and
orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1990;98:117-26.
18. Vaughan JL, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Relative
kinetic frictional forces between sintered stainless steel brackets and
orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:20-7.
19. Johnson E. Relative stiffness of beta titanium archwires. Angle
Orthod 2003;73:259-69.
20. Shastry CV, Goldberg AJ. The influence of drawing parameters
on the mechanical properties of two beta-titanium alloys. J Dent
Res 1983;62:1092-7.
21. Wilson DF, Goldberg AJ. Alternative beta-titanium alloys for
orthodontic wires. Dent Mater 1987;3:337-41.
22. Mo WN, Choe HC, Ko YM. Effect of drawing method on the
mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of stainless steel
wire for use in orthodontics. J Dent Res 2003;82 (Spec Iss
B):IADR abstract 2644.
23. Kusy RP, Stush AM. Geometric and material parameters of a
nickel-titanium and a beta titanium orthodontic archwire alloy.
Dent Mater 1987;3:207-17.
24. Meling TR, degaard J. On the variability of cross-sectional
dimensions and torsional properties of rectangular nickel-titanium
arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:546-57.
25. Siatkowski RE. Loss of anterior torque control due to variations
in bracket slot and archwire dimensions. J Clin Orthod 1999;33:
508-10.
26. Gioka C, Elidades T. Material-induced variation in the torque
expression of preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2004;125:323-8.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2006
27. Sebanc J, Brantley WA, Pincsak JJ, Conover JP. Variability of
effective root torque as a function of edge bevel on orthodontic
arch wires. Am J Orthod 1984;86:43-51.
28. Meling TR, degaard J, Seqner D. On bracket slot height: a
methodologic study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:
387-93.
29. Wood RA. Beta titanium alloys. Columbus, Ohio: Battelle
MCIC; 1972.
30. Duerig TW, Williams JC. Overview-microstructure and proper-
ties of beta-titanium alloys. In: Boyer RR, Rosenberg HW,
editors. Beta-titanium alloys in the 80s. Warrendale, Pa: Metal-
lurgical Society of Aime; 1984. p. 19-69.
31. Kusy RP, Tobin EJ, Whitley JQ, Sioshansi P. Frictional coeffi-
cients of ion-implanted alumina against ion-implanted beta-
titanium in the low load, low velocity, single pass regime. Dent
Mater 1992;8:167-72.
32. Burstone CJ, Farzin-Nia F. Production of low-friction and colored
TMA by ion implantation. J Clin Orthod 1995;29:453-61.
33. Dalstra M, Denes G, Melsen B. Titanium-niobium, a new
finishing wire alloy. Clin Orthod Res 2000;3:6-14.
34. de Biasi RS, Ruela ACO, Elias CN, Chevitarese O. The influence
of heat treatment in orthodontic arches made of stainless steel
wires. Mater Res 2000,3:97-8.
35. Brantley WA, Eliades T, Litsky AS. Mechanics and mechanical
testing of orthodontic materials. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T,
editors. Orthodontic materials: scientific and clinical aspects.
Stuttgart, New York: Thieme; 2001. p. 27-47.
36. Asgharnia MK, Brantley WA. Comparison of bending and
tension tests for orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod 1986;89:228-36.
37. Proffit WR, Fields HW. Mechanical principles in orthodontic
force control. In: Rudolph P, editor. Contemporary orthodontics.
3rd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 2000. p. 326-61.
38. Kusy RP. Orthodontic biomaterials: from the past to the present.
Angle Orthod 2002;72:501-12.
39. degaard J. The effects of loops on the torsional stiffnesses of
rectangular wires: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1996;109:496-505.
40. Waters NE, Houston WJ, Stephens CD. The characterization of
archwires for the initial alignment of irregular teeth. Am J Orthod
1981;79:373-89.
41. Davis JR. Metals handbook desk editions. Metal Parks, Ohio: ASM
International; 2001. Available at: http://products.asminternational.org/
hbk/index.jsp. Accessed, September 8, 2004.
42. Davis JR. Metallic materials. In: Davis JR, editor. Handbook of
materials for medical devices. Metal Parks, Ohio: ASM Interna-
tional; 2003. p. 21-50.
43. Eliades T, Eliades G, Athanasiou AE, Bradley TG. Surface
characterization of retrieved NiTi orthodontic archwires. Eur
J Orthod 2000;22:317-26.
44. Es-Souni M, Fisher-Brandies H, Es-Souni M. On the in vitro
biocompatibility of elgiloy, a co-based alloy, compared to two
titanium alloys. J Orofac Orthop 2003;64:16-26.
45. Kula K, Phillips C, Gibilaro A, Proffit WR. Effect of ion implan-
tation of TMA archwires on the rate of orthodontic sliding space
closure. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:577-81.
46. Boyer R, Welsch G, Collings EW. Materials properties hand-
book: titanium alloys. Metal Parks, Ohio: ASM International;
1994.
47. Buschow KHJ, Cahn RW, Flemings MC, Ilschner B, Kramer EJ,
Mahajan S. The encyclopedia of materials: science and technol-
ogy. Amsterdam: 2001. Elsevier; p. 406 11.