SCANNING VOL.
37, 414–421 (2015)
© Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Surface Ultrastructure and Mechanical Properties of Three Different
White-Coated NiTi Archwires
SEONG-HEE RYU,1 BYUNG-SUH LIM,1 EUN JOO KWAK,1 GI-JA LEE,2 SAMJIN CHOI,2 AND KI-HO PARK1
1
Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, Korea
2
Department of Biomedical Engineering, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee , University, Seoul, Korea
Summary: The recent trend in orthodontic treatment is
to apply esthetic materials to orthodontic appliances with
adequate clinical performance. The aim of this study was
to investigate the ultrastructure (surface roughness) and
mechanical properties (load-deflection curve) of three as-
received, white-coated superelastic nickel-titanium (NiTi)
archwires using atomic force microscopy (AFM) and
modified three-point bending test assessments, respec-
tively. Three representative esthetic NiTi archwires were
used, silver-platinum- and polymer-coated NiTi Natural
Dany (Dany group), epoxy resin-coated Orthoforce
UltraestheticTM (Ultra group), and Teflon1-coated Per-
fect (Perfect group). Uncoated metallic areas of each wire
were used as controls. The diameter of the Perfect
archwire was significantly larger than that of other
archwires. The Dany and Ultra groups showed more
deflection than the Perfect group. The hysteresis area of
the Dany and Ultra groups showed approximately two-
and fourfold increases compared to the control and the
Perfect group. The Dany group (2037.5
527.3 nm) had
the highest peak-to-peak surface roughness in the coated
areas, followed by the Ultra group (811.1
407.5 nm) and
the Perfect group (362.7
195.8 nm). However, reverse
nanostructural changes in the surface roughness were
observed in the uncoated metallic areas. The results
suggested that the load-deflection properties and the
Contract grant sponsor: Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of
Korea; Contract grant number: HI14C2241.
Conflict of interest: The authors have no competing interests to
declare.

Address for reprints: Samjin Choi, Department of Biomedical
Engineering, College of Medicine, Kyung Hee University, 26, Kyun-
gheedae-ro, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea
E-mail: medchoi@khu.ac.kr

Address for reprints: Ki-Ho Park, Department of Orthodontics,
College of Dentistry, Kyung Hee University, 26, Kyungheedae-ro,
Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul 130-701, Republic of Korea
E-mail: pkhmate@daum.net
Received 8 April 2015; Accepted with revision 21 May 2015
DOI: 10.1002/sca.21230
Published online 30 June 2015 in Wiley Online Library
(wileyonlinelibrary.com).
surface roughness of superelastic NiTi archwires were
affected directly by the coating materials. Although the
efficiency of orthodontic treatment was affected by
various factors, when only considering the frictional
force and mechanostructural properties, the epoxy resin-
coated Orthoforce UltraestheticTM archwires were the
most effective for orthodontic treatment. SCANNING
37:414–421, 2015. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Key words: white coating, nickel-titanium archwires,
load-deflection property, surface roughness
Introduction
Recent trends in orthodontic treatment have empha-
sized materials with acceptable esthetics for patients and
adequate clinical performance for clinicians (Elayyan
et al., 2010), particularly for two representative fixed
orthodontic materials, brackets and archwires. For
brackets, composite and ceramic materials have been
introduced (Russell, 2005) and metal-insert ceramic
brackets were developed to produce less frictional force
compared to conventional uncoated archwires (Dickson
and Jones, ’96; Cacciafesta et al., 2003). In the archwires,
three types of esthetic materials were introduced (Alavi
and Hosseini, 2012); the esthetically transparent non-
metallic orthodontic wire Optiflex1, fiber-reinforced
polymer archwire, and Teflon1 and epoxy resin coated
archwires. Although Optiflex1 (Ormco Co., Glendora,
CA) is coated with a silica core, silicone resin in the
middle layer, and stain-resistant nylon in the outer layer,
it did not show desirable mechanical properties (Talass,
’92; Lim et al., ’94). A fiber-reinforced polymer archwire
developed by another research group (Imai et al., ’99) had
an excellent appearance; however, it has not been
clinically popular due to its brittle character (Lim
et al., ’94; Kusy, 2002). Metallic archwires coated with
polymer materials, such as Teflon1 and epoxy resin,
have also been developed (Husmann et al., 2002; Elayyan
et al., 2008). Tooth-colored nickel-titanium (NiTi) wire
Woowa (Dany Harvest Co., Seoul, Korea) was recently
 Ryu et al.: Mechanostructure of white-coated NiTi AWs
introduced in clinical orthodontics. This wire had a
double-layered coating structure, an inner layer consist-
ing of a silver and platinum coating, and an outer layer
consisting of a special polymer coating (Iijima et al.,
2012).
In general, the frictional force between the archwire
and bracket reduces the efficiency of orthodontic
treatment (Choi et al., 2012a, 2012b). To develop a
new material, the mechanical properties and surface
characteristics of the orthodontic appliance as well as
primary factors determining the friction should be
considered for enhancing the efficiency of orthodontic
treatment. The mechanical properties of orthodontic
wires can be evaluated through load-deflection curve
measurement via a three-point bending test (Elayyan
et al., 2008). This is considered the most important
parameter in determining the biological nature of tooth
movement (Kapila and Sachdeva, ’89; Krishnan and
Kumar, 2004). The advantage of this assessment is it is a
clinic-friendly simulation for differentiating between
the superelastic wires that lead to high reproducibility
(Wilkinson et al., 2012). Alternatively, the surface
roughness of orthodontic wires is an essential factor in
determining the effectiveness of archwire-guided tooth
movement (Bourauel et al., ’98; Choi et al., 2012a,
2012b). The surface quality of wires affects the area of
surface contact and influences the corrosion behavior
and biocompatibility of the archwires (Elayyan et al.,
2008). Additionally, the surface topography can
critically modify the esthetics, corrosion, and efficiency
of the orthodontic components (Kusy et al., ’88).
Variations in the surface roughness affect plaque
accumulation (Wichelhaus et al., 2005). In particular,
the surface roughness might modify the friction
coefficient (Downing et al., ’94; Tselepis et al., ’94;
Bazakidou et al., ’97).
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there have been
no previous reports evaluating the mechanical properties
and ultrastructure of various polymer-coated metallic
archwires using a three-point bending test and atomic
force microscopy (AFM) measurements except fiber-
reinforced polymer composite (FRPC) archwire-based
Fig 1. Three intact esthetic NiTi archwires. (A) Silver-platinum- and polymer-coated NiTi Natural Dany archwire (Dany BMT, Seoul,
Korea), (B) epoxy resin-coated Orthoforce UltraestheticTM NiTi archwire (G&H1 Wire Company, Greenwood, IN), and (C) Teflon1-
coated Perfect NiTi archwire (Hubit, Seoul, Korea). Scale bar ¼ 10 mm.
415
study. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate
the effects of these various white coating materials on the
surface roughness and load-deflection curve of commer-
cially available orthodontic NiTi wires. Three-point
bending tests and AFM assessments were used to
evaluate the load-deflection properties and surface
roughness, respectively.
Methods
Materials
Three types of as-received white-coated NiTi
archwires (n ¼ 15 per each), including NiTi Natural
Dany (Dany BMT, Seoul, Korea), Orthoforce Ultra-
estheticTM NiTi (G&H1 Wire Company, Greenwood,
IN), and Perfect NiTi archwires (Hubit, Seoul, Korea)
(Fig. 1) were investigated in this study. The Dany
archwires (Dany group) had a double-layered coating
structure, an inner layer consisting of a silver and
platinum coating and an outer layer consisting of a
special polymer coating. The UltraestheticTM archwires
(Ultra group) were coated with epoxy resin. The Perfect
archwires (Perfect group) were coated with Teflon1.
Uncoated metallic areas for each white-coated NiTi
archwire were used as controls.
Load-Deflection Characteristics
A modified three-point bending test using a simple
device (Fig. 2) equipped with a digital caliper and a
microscope (M2011 Dino-Lite Basic USB microscope,
Dinolite, Taiwan) was conducted to examine the load and
deflection properties in the bending wires (Choi et al.,
2012b). The 0.022-in Clarity-SL bracket (3M Unitek,
Monrovia, CA) with lower incisors was used as a
supporting point. The anterior part of the archwire was
used as the loading point for the three-point bending test.
Two brackets of each group were bonded on both
horizontal surfaces of the digital caliper using an instant
416 SCANNING VOL. 37, 6 (2015)

Fig 2. Modified three-point bending test device for evaluating the geometric configuration of orthodontic wires. Photos of a (A) modified
three-point bending test device including the digital caliper and microscope and (B) the bending experiment. The wire was deflected
downward vertically (red arrow). Scale bar ¼ 50 mm.

adhesive (Loctite 495, Henkel, Ireland). The mesial plane
of each bracket base was aligned with the mesial plane of
the caliper. Because the bracket base faced the floor, a
three-point bending test in the buccolingual plane
simulating the first-order wire deflection to the lingual
side was performed. The interbracket distance was
modulated by a digital caliper to 15 mm. For the three-
point bending experiment, the prepared wire samples were
inserted and ligated into the brackets. The engaged NiTi
wire was connected to the custom-made acrylic container
at its half waypoint using a metal hook without a bracket.
Each wire was first loaded and then unloaded. The load
was increased in the container from 20 to 200 g at 20-g
intervals and then decreased the load at 20-g intervals back
to 20 g (Table S1, Supporting Information). The results of
the bending test were presented as the average of five
replicates using different 0.016-in wire samples (n ¼ 5 per
group). All measurements were performed at room
temperature (RT). The wires with straight in shape were
used and the preformed archwire shapes were excluded. In
order to estimate the geometric configuration of the wire,
pictures were taken every moment with a microscope
using a metal ruler for data compensation. Five clinicians
measured the amount of vertical wire deflection using
Motic Images Plus ver 2.0 (Motic China Group Co. Ltd,
Xiamen, China).
Surface Ultrastructure
size of 30  30 mm2, a resolution of 512  512 pixels,
and a scan speed of 0.6 lines/s. AFM tapping-mode
topographical imaging was performed at RT and 35%
relative humidity using a silicon cantilever with an
integral pyramidal shaped tip (SICONG; Santa Clara,
CA). The nominal tip radius and height were <10 nm
and 12–16 mm, respectively. A total of 60 images were
used for surface characterization of the three types of
esthetic 0.016  0.022-in NiTi archwires (n ¼ 10 per
each). Three surface roughness parameters, including
the roughness average (Sa), root-mean-square (Sq), and
peak-to-peak height (Sz), were calculated from AFM
tapping-mode topographical images using the Scanning
Probe Imaging Processor (SPIPTM ver. 4.8.3; Image
Metrology, Hørsholm, Denmark).
Statistics
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS
ver 12.0 (SPSS, Chicago, IL). All data sets are expressed
as the mean
standard deviation (SD). The Shapiro–
Wilks and Levene’s tests were used for examination of
the normality of distribution and the equality of
variances between groups. Mann–Whitney U-test and
Kruskal–Wallis test were performed to determine
whether there was a significant difference between
groups. Statistical significance was considered for a
p-value <0.05.

Tapping-mode AFM topographical images of the

anterior part (coated areas) and the posterior part
(uncoated areas) for three esthetic NiTi archwires were
obtained using an NANOS N8 NEOS (Bruker,
Herzogenrath, Germany) equipped with
42.5  42.5  4-mm3 XYZ scanner and two Zeiss
optical microscopes (Epiplan 200 /500 ). External
noise was eliminated by placing the AFM on an active
vibration isolation table (Table Stable Ltd., Surface
Imaging Systems, Herzogenrath, Germany) inside a
passive vibration isolation table (Pucotech, Seoul,
Korea). The wire surface was scanned in air with a
Results
Coating Effect on the Dimensions
a
There was no difference between the coated and
uncoated metallic areas in the mean diameter of the
three esthetic 0.016-in NiTi archwires (Table I).
However, the white-coated areas of the three
archwires showed a significant difference in diameter
(p < 0.001, Kruskal–Wallis test); the Teflon1-coated
Perfect archwire had the biggest diameter, followed
 Ryu et al.: Mechanostructure of white-coated NiTi AWs
TABLE I Diameter of three esthetic 0.016-in NiTi archwires according to coating area
Group Coating materials
Dany (n ¼ 5) Ag, Pt, and polymer
Ultra (n ¼ 5) Epoxy resin
Perfect (n ¼ 5) Teflon1
P-value
a
N.S., not significant.
b
This value indicates a significant difference between the Dany–Ultra group and Perfect group.
by silver-platinum- and polymer-coated Dany, and
the epoxy resin-coated Ultra archwires. In the
uncoated metallic area, the Dany and Ultra archwires
had equivalent diameters (0.0153
0.0005 inch). The
Perfect archwire had a significantly larger diameter
than other archwires (p < 0.005, Mann–Whitney test).
Three-Point Bending Test
The superelastic wire deformation according to the
load was photographed and analyzed by five ortho-
dontists (Fig. S1, Supporting Information). Each
white-coated superelastic NiTi wire showed different
geometric characteristics according to loading forces
of 0–200 g (Fig. 3). All wires showed hysteresis
characteristics in the load-deflection experiments.
Compared to the control (uncoated metallic areas),
the Dany and Ultra groups showed more deflection,
while the Perfect group showed less deflection. The
area of the hysteresis loops (energy loss) for the Dany
superelastic NiTi archwires and the Ultra superelastic
NiTi archwires showed approximately two- and
fourfold increases compared to the control (Fig. S2,
Supporting Information). The Perfect superelastic
NiTi archwires showed a similar hysteresis area
compared to the control. The statistical analysis of
the three superelastic NiTi archwires according to the
loading and unloading forces is summarized in
Table S1.
Fig 3. Load-deflection curves of three white-coated 0.016-in
superelastic NiTi archwires under loading forces of 0–200 g and
unloading forces of 200–0 g.
417
Coated area (in) Uncoated area (in) p-value
0.0154
0.0007 0.0153
0.0005 N.S.a
0.0153
0.0005 0.0153
0.0005 N.S.
0.0164
0.0005 0.0162
0.0004 N.S.
<0.001 <0.005b
AFM
Figure S3 (Supporting Information) shows the repre-
sentative tapping-mode AFM topographical images of the
coated and uncoated surfaces of the three white-coated
NiTi archwires. The three roughness parameters (Table II)
were used to evaluate the surface topography of each
group. Surface defects created during the manufacturing
processes and a substantial amount of debris were observed
in the uncoated metallic areas of three NiTi archwires. The
Perfect archwires (1978.2
457.9 nm) had the highest
surface roughness in the uncoated metallic areas, followed
by the UltraestheticTM archwires (976.9
544.2 nm) and
the Dany archwires (914.5
257.4 nm). However, the
coating materials led to reverse nanostructural changes in
the surface roughness. The silver-platinum- and polymer-
coated NiTi Natural Dany archwires showed the most
change in surface roughness (2037.5
527.3 nm, 223%
increase), followed by the Ultra group (811.1
407.5 nm,
17% decrease) and the Perfect group (362.7
195.8 nm,
82% decrease). Specifically, the Dany group showed a
circular particle structure with a 5-nm diameter. In
addition, AFM topographical 3D images (Fig. 4) provided
details of the changes in the nanostructures of the esthetic
NiTi archwire surfaces according to the different coating
materials.
Discussion
The mechanostructural properties of three as-
received esthetic NiTi archwires were evaluated in the
study. The superelastic NiTi Natural Dany coated
archwire of the Dany BMT Company had a double-
layered coating structure: an inner layer consisting of a
silver and platinum coating and an outer layer consisting
of a special polymer coating, parylene, which generally
has chlorine in its structure. Iijima et al. (2012) reported
that it contained 41% silver and 42% chlorine and a
uniform thickness of 0.01 mm using X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) analysis and scanning electron microscopy
(SEM) measurements, respectively. Superelastic Or-
thoforce UltraestheticTM NiTi coated archwire of the
G&H1 Wire Company was coated with a 0.05-mm
thickness epoxy resin (Alavi and Hosseini, 2012). The
418 SCANNING VOL. 37, 6 (2015)
TABLE II Surface roughness of three esthetic NiTi archwires (Fig. S4, supporting information)

Dany group Ultra group Perfect group p-value

Roughness (coated/uncoated) (coated/uncoated) (coated/uncoated) (coated/uncoateda)
Sa (nm) 278.6
91.5/60.2
9.6 52.8
16.7/56.7
4.9 15.5
6.9/100.4
34.6 <0.001/<0.001
Sq (nm) 340.9
106.4/80.9
15.6 69.7
21.7/73.7
6.5 22.3
10.1/136.9
42.5 <0.001/<0.001
Sz (nm) 2037.5
527.3/914.5
257.4 811.1
407.5/976.9
544.2 362.7
195.8/1978.2
457.9 <0.001/<0.001
p-value <0.001 N.S.b <0.001

a
This value indicates a significant difference between the Dany–Ultra group and Perfect group.
b
N.S., not significant.

superelastic Perfect NiTi coated archwire was made
through an atomizing process with cleaned compressed
air as the transport medium for the atomized Teflon1
particles (Farronato et al., 2012).
The load-deflection properties of three different
superelastic NiTi coating archwires were analyzed via a
three-point bending test. The three-point bending test
produced load-deflection diagrams consisting of an
upper loading curve and a lower unloading curve. The
vertical difference between them was the combined
effect of hysteresis in the materials and the frictional
effects of the archwire and bracket (Elayyan et al.,
2010). The loading curve represented the force needed
to engage the wire in the bracket, whereas the unloading
curve represented the forces delivered to the teeth during
the leveling and aligning stages of treatment (Segner and
Ibe, ’95; Alavi and Hosseini, 2012).
In this study, all coated NiTi wires showed more
deflection with the unloading force than the loading
force, which is consistent with previously reported
results (Lim et al., ’94; Krishnan and Kumar, 2004;
Elayyan et al., 2008, 2010; Alavi and Hosseini, 2012;
Wilkinson et al., 2012). Both the NiTi Natural Dany
and the UltraestheticTM NiTi coating archwires had
more deflection than the corresponding uncoated
metallic wires (control). Interestingly, they had the
same diameters of the coated and uncoated wires. For
both archwires, the diameter of the metal wire inside
the coated areas is likely less than that of the
uncoated metallic areas. This finding is consistent
with that reported by Elayyan et al. (2008, 2010). The
Dany group showed less deflection with a loading
force identical to the others. This result is consistent
with the findings of Iijima et al. (2012). Additionally,
the loading and unloading forces for an epoxy resin
coated wire were significantly less than that of NiTi
and polycoated wires of the same size. Elayyan et al.
(2010) reported that an epoxy resin-coated wire
larger than 0.016-in was effective compared to the
uncoated 0.016-in wire. Alavi and Hosseini (2012)

Fig 4. Tapping-mode AFM topographical 3D images of the coated surfaces (bottom) and uncoated surfaces (top) for the (A, D) Dany, (B,
E) Ultra, and (C, F) Perfect groups.
 Ryu et al.: Mechanostructure of white-coated NiTi AWs
recommended that an epoxy resin-coated wire would
be used in a 22-in slot bracket. Since the thickness of
the polycoated wire was less than that of an epoxy
resin-coated wire, the force of the polycoated wire
was similar to that of a NiTi-coated wire rather than
an epoxy resin-coated wire. Therefore, the poly-
coated wire showed the same mechanical properties
as an uncoated NiTi wire. Finally, the Perfect NiTi-
coated archwire showed the smallest deflection
among the three esthetic 0.016-in NiTi archwires.
This finding was responsible for the effect of the
coating and the fact that the Perfect NiTi coating
archwire had a larger diameter than the Dany and
Ultra groups. Therefore, a smaller Perfect NiTi
coating archwire and larger UltraestheticTM NiTi
coating archwire could be suggested for decrowding
dentitions with a similar level of crowding.
The primary technique used to investigate the surface
roughness was the surface profilometry (Bourauel et al.,
’98), in which a thin tip was used to scan the topography
along a single line of a preselected area. The main
drawback of this method is that it is impossible to
measure the surface defects adjacent to the scan line and
it is an invasive procedure. Therefore, the increasing
demand for nondestructive and noninvasive techniques
led to novel methods of analysis based on an optical
method (Vorburger and Teague, ’81) and on a developed
AFM (Binnig et al., ’82).
The AFM belongs to the family of scanning probe
microscopes that uses interatomic interactions to
acquire information on detected surfaces. AFM produ-
ces images based on a sensor, which is the sharp point
that interacts with the specimen surface (D’Ant
o et al.,
2012). Basically, AFM has three differing modes of
operation; contact mode, tapping mode, and non-contact
mode. In contact mode, the tip contacts the surface
through the adsorbed fluid layer on the sample surface.
The detector monitors the changes in cantilever
deflection. In tapping mode, the cantilever oscillates
at slightly below its resonant frequency. The amplitude
of oscillation typically is the ranges of 20–100 nm. The
tip lightly “taps” on the sample surface during scanning,
contacting the surface at the bottom of its swing. In non-
contact mode, the cantilever oscillates near the surface
of the sample, but does not contact it. The oscillation is
at slightly above the resonant frequency. Van der Waals
and other long-range forces decrease the resonant
frequency just above the surface. The contact mode is
adapted to the imaging of rough sample, and provides
high resolution image. However since it results in distort
features in the image, the tapping mode was selected in
this study (Table S2, Supporting Information). AFM has
many advantages, including the determination of
quantitative values for investigated parameters, no
additional preparation treatments (metallization), and
the production of topographical 3D images in real space
with a very high resolution. Although there is the
419
significant drawback of small scan size, which in
associated with the slow scanning velocity impeding
complete analysis of the sample, AFM is considered a
promising technique for evaluation of the surface
qualities of dental materials (Silikas et al., 2001;
Kakaboura et al., 2007; Lee et al., 2010).
For the NiTi Natural Dany coating archwires, the
roughness of the coated nonmetallic areas was greater
than that of the uncoated metallic areas. This finding was
consistent with that of Iijima et al. (2012). The roughness
of the Teflon1-coated Perfect NiTi archwire was less
than that of the Teflon1-uncoated areas. Previous
researcher revealed that since the Teflon1 coating led
to a decreased surface roughness of the materials, it
improved the sliding of the wire (Husmann et al., 2002;
Neumann et al., 2002; Wichelhaus et al., 2005).
Farronato et al. (2012) found that the Teflon1-coated
archwires showed less friction than uncoated archwires.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, there have been no
previous reports evaluating the surface roughness of
epoxy resin-coated archwires. However, in this study,
there was no significant difference in the roughness
regardless of the epoxy resin coating. The surface
roughness of the Perfect group was greater than that of
the Dany and Ultra groups in the uncoated areas, while
the surface roughness of the Dany group was the highest,
followed by the Ultra group and the Perfect group in the
coated areas. These findings were responsible for the use
of rough silver particles in the Dany group.
However, the influence of the surface quality of the
archwire and bracket slots on the production of friction
remains controversial (Dickson and Jones, ’96). Gen-
erally, frictional force between the archwires and
brackets is considered a negative factor that influences
normal tooth movement during sliding mechanics (Doshi
and Bhad-Patil, 2011). Studies (Imai et al., ’99; Talass,
’92; Lim et al., ’94; D’Ant
o et al., 2012) confirmed that
there was a correlation between the surface roughness
and friction, but orthodontic tooth movement was a very
complex process correlated to a number of critical
factors. Some studies (Prososki et al., ’91; Ghafari, ’92;
Saunders and Kusy, ’94; Chng et al., 2014) revealed that
the wire-surface roughness has no correlation with the
frictional coefficient. In particular, Chng et al. (2014)
reported that the FRPC esthetic archwire showed the
negative effects compared to the finding of this study.
Furthermore, the teeth and their surrounding structures
respond to the force by a complex biologic cascade, and
tooth movement takes places through the alveolar bone.
Tooth movement in intraoral environment is associated
with many some factors. These factors directly affect the
efficiency of orthodontic treatments (Choi et al., 2012a).
However, since this study did not consider these factors,
in vivo study with the intraloral-used samples is
absolutely needed. Therefore, further studies are needed
to fully evaluate the roughness of the archwire and the
various factors related to friction. The actual frictional
420 SCANNING VOL. 37, 6 (2015)
coefficient and mechanostructural alternation between
as-received and load-guided or clinical-retrieved arch-
wires will be also evaluated.
In summary, this study investigated the effects of
various white coating materials on the mechanical
properties and the surface roughness of commercially-
available orthodontic NiTi archwires. Three intact,
white-coated NiTi archwires, including silver-platinum-
and polymer-coated NiTi Natural Dany, epoxy resin-
coated Orthoforce UltraestheticTM, and Teflon1-coated
Perfect with cross-sectional dimensions of 0.016  0.022
inches for AFM assessment and 0.016 inch for the three-
point bending test were used. Both the Dany and Ultra
group exhibited more deflection than the corresponding
uncoated metallic areas. The Dany group showed less
deflection than other groups. The Perfect group showed
the lowest deflection among the three white-coated NiTi
archwires. The Dany group showed that the roughness of
the coated nonmetallic area was rougher than that of the
uncoated metallic area, while the Perfect group showed
that the roughness of the coated nonmetallic area was
smoother than that of the uncoated metallic area. There
was no significant difference in roughness between the
coated and uncoated areas for the Ultra group. The
roughness of the uncoated areas for the Perfect group was
greater than that of both the Dany and Ultra groups. The
roughness of the coated areas for the Dany group was
greater than that of both the Ultra and Perfect groups.
Based on these results, it could be inferred that the load-
deflection properties and the surface roughness of NiTi
archwires were directly affected by the coating material.
Acknowledgments
This study was supported by a grant from the Korean
Health Technology Research & Development Project,
by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea
(HI14C2241).
References
Alavi S, Hosseini N. 2012. Load-deflection and surface properties
of coated and conventional superelastic orthodontic archwires
in conventional and metal-insert ceramic brackets. Dent Res J
(Isfahan) 9:133–138.
Bazakidou E, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG Jr, Sinha PE. 1997.
Valuation of frictional resistance in esthetic brackets. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 112:138–144.
Binnig G, Rohrer H, Gerber C, Weibel E. 1982. Tunneling
through a controllable vacuum gap. Appl Phys Lett 40:
178–186.
Bourauel C, Fries T, Drescher D, Plietsch R. 1998. Surface
roughness of orthodontic wires via atomic force microscopy,
laser specular reflectance, and profilometry. Eur J Orthod
20:79–92.
Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F.
2003. Evaluation of friction of conventional and metal-insert
ceramic brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124:403–409.
Chng CK, Foong K, Gandedkar NH1, Chan YH, Chew CL. 2014.
A new esthetic fiber-reinforced polymer composite resin
archwire: a comparative atomic force microscope (AFM) and
field-emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM) study.
Prog Orthod 15:39.
Choi S, Joo HJ, Cheong Y, Park YG, Park HK. 2012a. Effects of self-
ligating brackets on the surfaces of stainless steel wires following
clinical use: AFM investigation. J Microsc 246:53–59.
Choi S, Lee S, Cheong Y, et al. 2012b. Ultrastructural effect of
self-ligating bracket materials on stainless steel and supere-
lastic NiTi wire surfaces. Microsc Res Tech 75:1076–1083.
D’Ant
o V, Rongo R, Ametrano G, et al. 2012. Evaluation of
surface roughness of orthodontic wires by means of atomic
force microscopy. Angle Orthod 82:922–928.
Dickson J, Jones S. 1996. Frictional characteristics of a modified
ceramic bracket. J Clin Orthod 30:516–518.
Doshi UH, Bhad-Patil WA. 2011. Static frictional force and
surface roughness of various bracket and wire combinations.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 139:74–79.
Downing A, McCabe J, Gordon P. 1994. A study of frictional
forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Br J
Orthod 21:349–357.
Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D. 2008. Ex vivo surface and
mechanical properties of coated orthodontic archwires. Eur J
Orthod 30:661–667.
Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D. 2010. Mechanical properties of
coated superelastic archwires in conventional and self-
ligating orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 137:213–217.
Farronato G, Maijer R, Car
a MP, et al. 2012. The effect of
Teflon1 coating on the resistance to sliding of orthodontic
archwires. Eur J Orthod 34:410–417.
Ghafari J. 1992. Problems associated with ceramic brackets
suggest limiting use on selected teeth. Angle Orthod 62:
145–152.
Husmann P, Bourauel C, Wessinger M, J€ager A. 2002. The
frictional behavior of coated guiding archwires. J Orofac
Orthop 63:199–211.
Iijima M, Muguruma T, Brantley W, et al. 2012. Effect of coating
on properties of esthetic orthodontic nickel-titanium wires.
Angle Orthod 82:319–325.
Imai T, Watari F, Yamagata S, et al. 1999. Effects of water
immersion on mechanical properties of new esthetic
orthodontic wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
116:533–538.
Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. 2007. Evaluation
of surface characteristics of dental composites using
profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy
and gloss-meter. J Mater Sci Mater Med 18:155–163.
Kapila S, Sachdeva R. 1989. Mechanical properties and clinical
applications of orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 96:100–109.
Krishnan V, Kumar KJ. 2004. Weld characteristics of orthodontic
archwire materials. Angle Orthod 74:533–538.
Kusy RP. 2002. Orthodontic biomaterials: from the past to the
present. Angle Orthod 72:501–512.
Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Mayhew MJ, Buckthal JE. 1988. Surface
roughness of orthodontic archwires via laser spectroscopy.
Angle Orthod 58:33–45.
Lee GJ, Park KH, Park YG, Park HK. 2010. A quantitative AFM
analysis of nano-scale surface roughness in various ortho-
dontic brackets. Micron 41:775–782.
Lim KF, Lew KK, Toh SL. 1994. Bending stiffness of two
aesthetic orthodontic archwires: an in vitro comparative
study. Clin Mater 16:63–71.
Neumann P, Bourauel C, J€ager A. 2002. Corrosion and permanent
fracture resistance of coated and conventional orthodontic
wires. J Mater Sci Mater Med 13:141–147.
Prososki RR, Bagby MD, Erickson LC. 1991. Friction and
roughness of nickel-titanium arch wires. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 100:341–348.
 Ryu et al.: Mechanostructure of white-coated NiTi AWs
Russell JS. 2005. Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod
32:146–163.
Saunders CR, Kusy RP. 1994. Surface topography and frictional
characteristics of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 106:76–87.
Segner D, Ibe D. 1995. Properties of superelastic wires and their
relevance to orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 17:395–402.
Silikas N, Lennie AR, England KER, Watts DC. 2001. AFM as a
tool in dental research. Microsc Anal 82:19–21.
Talass MF. 1992. Optiflex archwire treatment of a skeletal class
III open bite. J Clin Orthod 26:245–252.
Tselepis M, Brockhurst P, West VC. 1994. Frictional resistance
between brackets and archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 106:131–138.
Vorburger TV, Teague EC. 1981. Optical techniques for online
measurement of surface topography. Precision Eng 3:
61–83.
421
Wichelhaus A, Geserick M, Hibst R, Sander FG. 2005. The effect
of surface treatment and clinical use on friction in NiTi
orthodontic wires. Dent Mater 21:938–945.
Wilkinson PD, Dysart PS, Hood JA, Herbison GP. 2012. Load-
deflection characteristics of superelastic nickel-titanium
orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
121:483–495.
Supporting Information
Additional supporting information may be found in the
online version of this article.