International Orthodontics 2023; 21: 100753

Websites:
www.em-consulte.com
www.sciencedirect.com

Original article
Effects of various coating methods on the
mechanical, physical, and aesthetic
properties of GUMMETAL® archwires: In vitro
study

Alan Zhou 1, Steven Makowka 2, Stephen Warunek 1, Ming-Yu Chen 1, Thikriat Al-Jewair 1

Available online: 13 April 2023 1. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New
York at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA
2. Materials Testing Facility, School of Dental Medicine, State University of New York
at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

Correspondence:
Thikriat Al-Jewair, 140 Squire Hall, Department of Orthodontics, University at
Buffalo School of Dental Medicine, 3435 Main Street, Buffalo NY 14214, USA.
thikriat@buffalo.edu

Keywords Summary
Coating
GUMMETAL® Purpose > The objective of this study was to evaluate the mechanical, physical, and aesthetic
Aesthetic archwires properties of GUMMETAL® (GM) orthodontic archwires after the application of various aesthetic
Friction coating materials.
Force deflection rate Methods > This in vitro study included 180 orthodontic wires: five experimental groups used
0.016
0.022-inch GM as the core-based wire followed by the application of epoxy, polytetra-
fluoroethylene (PTFE), clear ceramic, white ceramic, or silicone; and four control groups:
0.016
0.022-inch GM, 0.019
0.025-inch GM, 0.016
0.022-inch stainless steel (SS), and
0.019
0.025-inch SS. Frictional forces, force deflection rate, yield strength, aesthetic colour
value, corrosive and wear resistance were compared between the experimental and control
groups.
Results > Among the coated wires, white ceramic exhibited the highest frictional force (2.06
 0.20 N) and silicone showed the lowest values (0.88  0.12 N). There were significant differ-
ences in static friction between experimental and control groups (P < 0.001). PTFE coating had the
highest force deflection rate (9.03  0.12 N/mm) and yield strength (10.0  0.14 N/mm) among
coated wires and white ceramic exhibited the lowest values (6.86  0.14 N/mm and 7.74
 0.17 N/mm for force deflection rate and yield strength, respectively). Differences in force
deflection rate and yield strength between experimental and control groups were statistically
significant (P < 0.001). All coated wire groups had a clinical difference in colour when compared to
A1 shade. Coated and uncoated wires showed good corrosion resistance after one week in
corrosive saliva with no detectable loss of mass.
Conclusions > This study has shown that coating wires can improve some aspects of the wire
properties but not all when compared to uncoated GM and SS. Future investigation of the materials
used in this study is required to further characterize their properties.

tome 21 > n82 > June 2023

10.1016/j.ortho.2023.100753
© 2023 CEO. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
A. Zhou, S. Makowka, S. Warunek, M-Y Chen, T. Al-Jewair
Introduction
Orthodontic archwires are coated to enhance their perfor-
mance, aesthetics, or both. The demand for more aestheti-
cally pleasing orthodontic appliances originated from
patients who wanted a less metallic display [1–4]. The sur-
face characteristics and material composition of an ortho-
dontic wire determine properties such as its corrosive
resistance, wear resistance, aesthetic quality, and frictional
force [5,6]. Coating orthodontic wires thus gives clinicians
the ability to manipulate these properties to improve clinical
performance and appearance.
Orthodontic archwires are commonly coated with diverse mate-
rials, including epoxy resin, polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), rho-
dium, and other polymers [4,6–8]. Epoxy resin coatings have
demonstrated good adhesion, chemical resistance, and dimen-
sional stability, as well as being electrically insulating [2]. PTFE
coatings are non-toxic, non-reactive, and resistant to heat, with
a low coefficient of friction [2,9,10]. However, these coatings
may deteriorate, exposing the underlying metal, and the colour
of the coating may change over time [4,11]. Such materials have
been applied to nickel titanium (NiTi) and stainless steel (SS)
wires [4,6,7,9,12]. A new B-titanium archwire material has
recently been marketed for use in orthodontics commercially
known as GUMMETAL® (GM; Rocky Mountain Morita Corpora-
tion, Tokyo, Japan).
GM has a chemical composition of titanium-niobium-tantalum-
zirconium (Ti 59%, Nb 36%,Ta 2%, Zr 3%) [13]. It is flexible,
super-elastic, possesses high yield strength, low Young's mod-
ulus, low coefficient of friction and high spring-back with no
hysteresis [13–15]. GM is also easier to bend compared with
other titanium alloy wires [13]. More recently, an aesthetic GM
plated with rhodium has been marketed. Albawardi et al. in an
in vitro study found that rhodium-plated GM exhibited higher
frictional forces than uncoated GM [16]. Upon SEM imaging,
rhodium-plated GM showed signs of cracking and flaking indi-
cating that there is a need for an improved aesthetic GM wire. In
addition, the high friction of the rhodium-plated GM limits its
application for sliding mechanics.
There has not been a study that has attempted to coat GM
with other materials such as epoxy resin, or PTFE, two
commonly used wire coating materials. There is also limited
evidence on wire coating materials that are not commonly
used such as ceramic and silicone. The aim of this study was
to evaluate the mechanical, physical, and aesthetic proper-
ties of GM wires coated with multiple aesthetic materials in
comparison to uncoated GM and SS. The study hypothesized
that there will be no difference in frictional forces, force
deflection rate, yield strength, aesthetic properties, and
corrosive and wear resistance among the coated GM wires,
between coated and uncoated GM, and between coated GM
and uncoated SS.
2
Original article
Material and methods
Study design
Sample size estimation was conducted in reference to Albawardi
et al. [16]. With a power of 90%, alpha of 5% and mean difference
in static friction of 0.7N, a minimum of 16 wires per group was
needed. This in-vitro study included 180 wires divided into five
coated GM experimental groups and four uncoated GM and SS
control groups. The control wires (20 wires/group) were
0.016
0.022-inch GM (GUMMETAL®; JM Ortho corporation, Lot
# 200109 M), 0.019
0.025-inch GM (GUMMETAL®; JM Ortho
Corporation, Lot # 200109 M), 0.016
0.022-inch SS (Ormco Co,
Glendora, CA, Lot# 219-1408), and 0.019
0.025-inch SS (Ormco
Co, Glendora, CA, Lot# 219-1412). The five experimental groups
(20 wires/group) used 0.016
0.022-inch GM (GUMMETAL®; JM
Ortho Corporation Lot # 200109 M) as the core wire, coated with
five different medically compliant materials: epoxy, PTFE, clear
ceramic, white ceramic, and silicone.
Coating of wires
The core wire was 0.016
0.022-inch GM and the goal was to
have the coatings add dimension to the wire to reach to
0.019
0.025-inch. The coating of wires was performed by
Applied Medical Coatings (AMC, Lockport, NY, USA). First, the
wires were ultrasonic cleaned for seven minutes. Then, they
were cleaned with deionized water and a generic cleaning
solution. The wires were air-dried, and plasma treated for five
minutes with an oxygen and hydrogen mixture. At this stage,
the wires were ready for the coating process.
The epoxy coating (MACROPOXY® HS High Solids Epoxy; Sherwin
Williams, Cleveland, OH) started with hanging the wires on both
ends of the arch on a custom-made apparatus. A two-part (Part
A B58-400 and Part B B58V400) mixture was sprayed with a
spray cup gun at 26 psi for 10 seconds on each side of the wires
in a room at 228C and allowed to dry.
The PTFE (Xlyan® 8820HR/E3216B, Whiteford Corporation,
Elverson, PA) coating started with hanging the wires on both
ends of the arch on a custom-made apparatus. Then it was spray
treated with a spray cup gun at 26 psi for 10 seconds on each
side of the wires in a room at 228C. Subsequently, the wires
were oven baked at 4008C for 12 minutes, then air cooled.
Both the clear ceramic (Cerakote MC-156. High Gloss Ceramic Clear,
CERAKOTE®; White City, OR) and white ceramic (Cerakote H-Series.
Part A, CERAKOTE®; White City, OR) coatings were applied using
the same process. Both coatings were sprayed with a spray cup
gun at 26 psi for 10 seconds on each side of the wires in a room at
228C. The clear ceramic coating was then allowed to air dry to
complete the coat. However, the white ceramic coating was baked
for three hours at 1208C and then allowed to air dry.
For the silicone (Dow Corning® MDX4-4159 Fluid 50% Medical
Grade Dispersion, Dow Corning®, Midland, MI) coating, the
wires were dipped in a silicone mixture (3% silicone and
tome 21 > n82 > June 2023
International Orthodontics 2023; 21: 100753
97% isopropyl alcohol and mineral spirits) for 30 seconds and
then air dried. The wires were once again dipped in the silicone
mixture for 30 seconds and air dried. After all coatings were
applied, the wires were inspected with a light microscope at
10
to check for contaminates and then repackaged.
All wires then underwent assessment of their frictional forces, force
deflection rate (three-point bending), yield strength, aesthetics,
corrosive resistance, and wear resistance. For the friction and three-
point bending tests, the straight distal portion of the natural arch
form was used. The wires were marked to designate left and right
of each arch form. The left side of the arch was used for the three-
point bending test and the right side for the friction test. The
dimensions of the control wires and coated wires were measured
using a Unitron BiS-3214 traveling microscope (Unitron®, Com-
mack, NY) and 3
magnification objective. All procedures and
data collection were performed by one investigator (A.Z.).
Friction forces
Two types of 0.022-inch slot McLaughlin, Bennett, and Trevisi (0-
degree torque) prescription (MBTTM) maxillary right canine twin
brackets were used, metal (Victory SeriesTM, 3 M Unitek, Mon-
rovia, CA, LOT#MG5YD) and ceramic (Clarity SeriesTM, 3 M Unitek,
Monrovia, Calif. LOT#MJ1AE). The brackets were oriented at a
passive (0-degree) bracket-wire orientation with the use of a 3D
printed jig with 0-degree slots made with a Formlabs Form
3 printer (Formlabs, Somerville, MA). A 3''
1.5''
0.125''
precision ground aluminium plate (McMaster-Carr, Aurora,
OH) was aligned with the jig using indexed mating surfaces
and temporarily attached to said 3D printed mounting jig with
elastic bands to maintain its position. Straight SS wires were
then attached to the brackets with elastic ligatures. Then, the
straight SS wire of each assembly was placed into a 0-degree
slot of the jig, aligning the bracket of this assembly at 0-
degrees, where it was then adhered to the aluminium plate
with Henkel LOCTITE SF 713TM adhesive accelerator and Henkel
LOCTITE superglue Gel Control. After adhesion, the plate was
then removed from the 3D printed jig and transferred to the
testing fixture; where a combination of the straight wires and
precision ground indexed surfaces of the aluminium plate were
used to align the brackets to the grip of the testing
fixture, where the plate was clamped in place. The straight
wires were then exchanged for the wires to be tested.
The coated wires were tied to each bracket with clear elastomeric
modules (3MTM AlastiKTM Easy-To-Tie Ligatures Ormco, Glendora,
CA). Afterwards, the aluminium plates with the brackets were
placed on a custom setup then a Dillion Quantrol TC2i universal
testing machine (Dillon, Fairmont, MN) was used for the friction
test. Two weights (100 g and 50 g) adding up to 150 g weight
were hung to simulate clinical forces of canine retraction. The wire,
and bracket interaction was brushed with artificial saliva (Pickering
Laboratories, Mountain View, CA. LOT#2201043) three times after
loading but before testing. The wire was pulled at a rate of
tome 21 > n82 > June 2023
3
Original article
10 mm/minute and static friction was recorded using Emperor
Force Software (Mecmesin, West Sussex, UK). Each wire was pulled
three times before the next sample was loaded. Brackets were
replaced after five friction tests.
SEM was used to qualitatively examine the surface quality (wear of
coating) before and after the friction test. Representative samples of
each wire group were selected at random. The wire surfaces were
imaged and analysed with a field emission SEM (HitachiSU-70 FE-
SEM, Tokyo, Japan) at 20.0 kV, at 80
, 500
,
2000
magnification. In addition, energy dispersive x-ray spec-
troscopy (EDS) analysis was performed to characterize surface
elemental composition.
Three-point bending test
The design of the three-point bending test followed ISO standard
15841.2014 for wires used in orthodontics [17]. The test was
performed with the same universal testing machine described
previously. To adhere to the ISO standard, the indenter and fulcrum
radii needed to be at 0.1  0.05 mm. The bulk of the indenter and
fulcrum were 3D printed using Formlabs Grey Pro Resin with a
Formlabs Form 3 printer (Formlabs, Somerville, MA); while the
contacting surfaces between the indenter and fulcrum and the
wires were made of square cross-section SS wire with corners of
appropriate radii The span of the wire that was tested was 10 mm
with a crosshead speed of 1.25 mm/min at room temperature
(258C) to a deflected distance of 3.1 mm before the crosshead
returned to its original position. Each wire group was tested twenty
times using twenty different wires. A graph was plotted with the X-
axis as distance (mm) and the Y-axis as force (Newtons). The force
deflection rate and yield strength were extrapolated from the
generated graph. The force deflection rate was obtained by taking
the slope between 0.25 mm and 0.75 mm. The yield strength was
recorded by calculating the y intercept of a parallel line 0.1 mm
offset (along the x-axis) from the initial starting point.
Colourimetry
The coated and uncoated wires were compared to a selected
tooth colour (A1) from a prosthodontic tooth shade guide
(Chromascop®, Ivoclar, Amherst, NY) with the use of a colour-
imeter (Konica Minolta Spectrophotometer CM-2600d, Konica
Minolta, Ramsey, NJ). From each group, 15 randomly selected
wires were cut into 60 mm lengths from one distal end of the
wire toward the arch and stacked next to each other to fill the
view of the spectrophotometer's aperture. Colour parameters
using L*a*b* colour space system where L* axis denoting bright-
ness, a* representing the degree of redness (+a*) or greenness
(–a*) and b* representing the degree of yellowness (+b*) or
blueness (–b*) of the wires [18]. Delta E values were calculated
according to ASTM D2244-16 [19], to determine the difference
between wire colour and A1 shade guide colour1 using the
2 2 2 2
formula: DE  ab ¼ ½ðDLÞ þ ðDaÞ þ ðDbÞ 
The colour of the coated wires and controls was gathered with
specular component excluded (SCE) [20]. The settings had an
A. Zhou, S. Makowka, S. Warunek, M-Y Chen, T. Al-Jewair

observer angle at 2-degrees [20], using the daylight D65 illu-
minant. Data were collected with both UV at 0% and 100%. A
DE* greater than 3.7 was considered a colour difference that
could be recognized clinically [21].
Corrosion resistance
Three representative wire samples, 8 mm in length, one from
each group (n = 27) were randomly selected. Each wire was
separated into three testing conditions: air, water and corrosive
saliva (ISO 10271-2011; pH 2.3; Pickering Laboratories, Mountain
View, CA. LOT#2203049).
Using a colourimeter (Konica Minolta Spectrophotometer CM-
200d/2500d), the wires were individually measured on a black
background (black light trap) that absorbed 98% of light. After-
wards, the mass of each wire was measured with a Satorius
balance model H51 (Satorius, Goettingen, Germany). Each wire
was placed into separate 50 mL conical centrifuge tubes labelled
air, water, and saliva. The tubes labelled water were filled with
50 mL of deionized water; the tubes labelled saliva were filled
with 50 mL of corrosive saliva; and the tubes labelled air were
only sealed. Two 50 mL conical centrifuge tubes did not have
wires in them and were blanks for water and corrosive saliva. The
Original article
pH of the fluids was taken with Labrat Supplies universal plastic
pH test strips (Labrat Supplies, Parkton, NC). All tubes were then
placed in a 378C incubator for seven days. After incubating, the
pH, weight, and colour of the wires were remeasured to evaluate
changes from the initial measurements in the wires or fluids.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using R (v4.0.4) through RStudio (v.461)
(RStudio, Boston, MA). Data normality were calculated with
Shapiro-Wilk test. The static friction, force deflection rate and
yield strength of the wires were analyzed with one-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) followed by pairwise comparison between
each wire using Tukey's honestly significant differences (HSD)
with the significance set at P < 0.05. The correlation between
wire dimension and static friction, force deflection rate and yield
strength were analyzed with multiple testing adjusted P-value
using the less conservative Benjamini-Hochberg method.
Results
Static friction
The mean static friction of each wire group is presented in table
I. In the metal bracket group, the white ceramic coated wire
exhibited the highest average frictional force (2.06  0.20N),

TABLE I
Mean static friction of all wire groups according to bracket type

Bracket type Wire type Mean (n) SD P-valuea

Metal Clear ceramic 1.37 0.27 < 0.001

White ceramic 2.06 0.20

Epoxy 1.22 0.10

PTFE 1.28 0.38

Silicone 0.88 0.12

GM 16
22 1.10 0.12

GM 19
25 1.32 0.11

SS 16
22 1.22 0.10

SS 19
25 1.19 0.08

Ceramic Clear ceramic 0.93 0.19 < 0.001

White ceramic 0.98 0.18

Epoxy 0.94 0.12

PTFE 0.76 0.12

Silicone 0.68 0.11

GM 16
22 0.89 0.06

GM 19
25 1.17 0.14

SS 16
22 0.94 0.12

SS 19
25 1.17 0.12

a
One-way ANOVA by bracket type; significance set at P < 0.05.

tome 21 > n82 > June 2023

4
International Orthodontics 2023; 21: 100753

while the lowest was the silicone coating (0.88  0.12N). In the
ceramic bracket group, both 0.019
0.025-inch GM and SS
wires had the highest average friction (1.17  0.014N and
1.17  0.012N, respectively) while the lowest was also the
silicone coated wire (0.68  0.11N). The one-way ANOVA test
showed significant differences between the nine wire groups for
both bracket types, P < 0.001. Pairwise comparisons using
Tukey's HSD are presented in tables S-I and II.
Force deflection rate
The highest mean force deflection rate was exhibited by the
0.019
0.025-inch SS (31.29 N/mm  0.76N) and the lowest
by the 0.016
0.022-inch GM (6.71  0.2 N/mm) as shown in
table II. Among the coated wires, PTFE showed the highest
values (9.03  0.12 N/mm) and white ceramic the lowest
(6.86  0.14 N/mm). One-way ANOVA test indicated a signifi-
cant difference in force deflection rates between all wire groups,
P < 0.001. Pairwise comparisons are presented in table S-III.
All wire types showed a significant difference in yield strength
relative to each other (P < 0.001). The highest average yield
strength exhibited among the coated wires was PTFE (10.0
Original article
 0.14 N/mm) and the lowest was white ceramic (7.74
 0.17 N/mm). Table S-IV presents the yield strength pairwise
comparisons.
Correlation analysis between wire dimensions and
frictional forces, force deflection rate, and yield
strength
Table III presents wire dimensions measured on the traveling
microscope. The only coating that reached the target
0.019
0.025-inch was the epoxy coating. The white and clear
ceramic coatings and PTFE dimensions were approximately
0.018
0.024-inch. The silicone coating was very thin and
did not have a measurable difference.
Correlation was weak and not significant between wire dimen-
sion and frictional forces in metal and ceramic brackets for all
wire groups (table IV). There was also a non-significant weak
correlation between wire dimensions and force deflection rate
for all wire groups except clear ceramic which showed a strong
and statistically significant correlation (table V, r = 0.67,
P = 0.014).

TABLE II
Mean force deflection rate and yield strength of all wire groups

Force deflection rate Yield strength

a
Wire type Mean (N/mm) SD P-value Mean (N/mm) SD P-valuea

Clear ceramic 7.41 0.10 < 0.001 8.22 0.15 < 0.001

White ceramic 6.86 0.14 7.74 0.17

Epoxy 7.55 0.07 8.72 0.21
PTFE 9.03 0.12 10.00 0.14
Silicone 7.58 0.25 8.30 0.22
GM 16
22 6.71 0.20 7.60 0.14
GM 19
25 11.62 0.15 12.29 0.12
SS 16
22 19.68 0.31 19.25 0.20
SS 19
25 31.29 0.76 29.77 0.41
a
One-way ANOVA; significance set at P < 0.05

tome 21 > n82 > June 2023

5
A. Zhou, S. Makowka, S. Warunek, M-Y Chen, T. Al-Jewair

Original article
TABLE III
Mean wire cross-section area in inches

Wire type Type Mean SD

Clear ceramic Width 0.024 0.000683

Thickness 0.018 0.000800

White ceramic Width 0.024 0.000151

Thickness 0.018 0.000331

Epoxy Width 0.025 0.000566

Thickness 0.019 0.000620

PTFE Width 0.024 0.000373

Thickness 0.017 0.000419

Silicone Width 0.022 0.000183

Thickness 0.016 0.000267

GM 16
22 Width 0.022 0.000086

Thickness 0.016 0.000107

GM 19
25 Width 0.025 0.000068

Thickness 0.019 0.000112

SS 16
22 Width 0.022 0.000100

Thickness 0.016 0.000105

SS 19
25 Width 0.025 0.000185

Thickness 0.019 0.000083

tome 21 > n82 > June 2023

6
International Orthodontics 2023; 21: 100753

Original article
TABLE IV
Correlation between wire friction and cross-section area according to bracket type

Bracket type Wire type r 95% CI Lower bound 95% CI Upper bound Adjusted P-valuea

Metal Clear ceramic 0.11 –0.56 0.69 0.905

White ceramic –0.48 –0.85 0.22 0.500

Epoxy –0.22 –0.75 0.48 0.905

PTFE –0.53 –0.87 0.15 0.500

Silicone 0.21 –0.48 0.74 0.905

GM 16
22 0.25 –0.45 0.76 0.905

GM 19
25 0.57 –0.09 0.88 0.500

SS 16
22 0.11 –0.56 0.69 0.905

SS 19
25 0.06 –0.59 0.67 0.905

Ceramic Clear ceramic 0.47 –0.23 0.85 0.500

White ceramic 0.51 –0.18 0.86 0.500

Epoxy –0.09 –0.68 0.57 0.905

PTFE 0.54 –0.14 0.87 0.500

Silicone –0.23 –0.75 0.46 0.905

GM 16
22 –0.28 –0.78 0.42 0.905

GM 19
25 0.16 –0.52 0.72 0.905

SS 16
22 0.04 –0.61 0.65 0.917

SS 19
25 0.14 –0.54 0.71 0.905

a
Adjusted P-value = multiple testing adjusted P-value using less conservative Benjamini-Hochberg method.

tome 21 > n82 > June 2023

7
A. Zhou, S. Makowka, S. Warunek, M-Y Chen, T. Al-Jewair

Original article
TABLE V
Correlation between force deflection rate, yield strength and cross-section area

Measurement Wire type r 95% CI Lower bound 95% CI Upper bound Adjusted P-valuea

Force deflection rate Clear ceramic 0.67 0.32 0.86 0.014

White ceramic 0.43 –0.02 0.73 0.389

Epoxy 0.19 –0.28 0.58 0.619

PTFE 0.02 –0.43 0.46 0.937

Silicone 0.40 –0.05 0.72 0.389

GM 16
22 –0.23 –0.61 0.23 0.619

GM 19
25 0.19 –0.28 0.58 0.619

SS 16
22 –0.28 –0.64 0.19 0.619

SS 19
25 0.27 –0.20 0.63 0.619

Yield Strength Clear Ceramic –0.38 –0.70 0.08 0.509

White Ceramic 0.52 0.10 0.78 0.184

Epoxy 0.01 –0.43 0.45 0.961

PTFE 0.02 –0.43 0.46 0.961

Silicone 0.06 –0.39 0.49 0.961

GM 16
22 0.25 –0.22 0.62 0.726

GM 19
25 0.22 –0.25 0.60 0.726

SS 16
22 –0.09 –0.51 0.37 0.961

SS 19
25 0.08 –0.38 0.51 0.961

a
Adjusted P-value = multiple testing adjusted P-value using less conservative Benjamini-Hochberg method; significance set at P < 0.05.

tome 21 > n82 > June 2023

8
International Orthodontics 2023; 21: 100753

Colour analysis compared to A1 shade
Table VI presents the colour analysis of all wire groups and their
comparison to A1 shade guide. For UV at 100%, the PTFE coated
wires had the lowest DE* at 12.94. The highest DE* was silicone
coated wires at 25.99. For UV at 0%, the PTFE coated wires had the
lowest DE* at 14.12 while 0.016
0.022-inch and 019
0.025-
inch SS wires had the highest (DE* of 54.42 and 53.76, respec-
tively). Overall, all wires had a DE* greater than 10 and none of the
coated wires were close to a tooth shade of A1.
Original article
Corrosion resistance
Evaluations of the mass (g), pH and colour before and after
the corrosion test under corrosive saliva, water and air
showed that after the passing of one week, the mass (g)
of the wires and pH of the solution did not change. Similarly,
the colour of the wires did not have a noticeable
change except for the epoxy coating which had the highest
DE* of around 7 in both water and corrosive saliva (tables S-
V–VII).

TABLE VI
Colour analysis of all wire groups when compared to A1 shade

UV Type Wire type L* Mean a* Mean b* Mean DE

UV100 SCE A1 72.20 0.08 11.82 NA

A2 70.36 –0.20 12.95 2.18

Clear Ceramic 46.38 0.52 3.48 27.14

White Ceramic 65.69 –2.16 –0.62 14.21

Epoxy 83.25 –1.78 –1.31 17.25

PTFE 71.69 –1.76 –0.98 12.94

Silicone 47.60 0.52 3.46 25.99

GM 16
22 51.16 2.15 4.24 22.47

GM 19
25 52.72 0.53 4.13 20.95

SS 16
22 49.15 –0.28 4.18 24.29

SS 19
25 49.15 –0.28 4.18 24.29

UV0 SCE A1 62.06 –46.12 0.01 NA

A2 61.40 –45.70 –0.39 0.87

Clear Ceramic 40.80 –30.91 –6.40 26.91

White Ceramic 56.37 –38.50 –11.88 15.23

Epoxy 74.96 –47.90 –15.23 20.05

PTFE 63.92 –42.16 –13.41 14.12

Silicone 43.64 –31.48 –6.72 24.47

GM 16
22 45.41 –33.49 –6.83 21.98

GM 19
25 46.10 –33.72 –7.17 21.45

SS 16
22 38.97 1.89 11.12 54.42

SS 19
25 39.61 2.33 6.23 53.76

tome 21 > n82 > June 2023

9
A. Zhou, S. Makowka, S. Warunek, M-Y Chen, T. Al-Jewair
Wear resistance, surface morphology, and chemical
composition
SEM imaging of all representative wires before friction testing
showed that the GM surface appeared rough with noticeable
pockets and fissures (figure 1). The SS wire was smooth and
mostly uniform with some minor fissures. The clear ceramic
coating was uniform and smooth. The white ceramic coating had
large pockets, was not uniform and appeared rough. The epoxy
coated surface appeared to be uniform, but the coating had a
slight bumpy appearance. The PTFE coating, similar to epoxy,
Figure 1
SEM images (20.0 kV; 500
original magnification) of representative samples before any testing (a) clear ceramic; (b) white ceramic;
(c) epoxy; (d) PTFE; (e) silicone; (f) GUMMETAL®; (g) stainless steel
10
Original article
appeared to be uniform and smoother. The surface texture of the
silicone coated GM was almost identical to uncoated GM. The
visually observed appearance from smoothest to roughest of
coated wires were, clear ceramic, PTFE, epoxy, silicone, and
white ceramic.
Figures 2 and 3 present the wires after they underwent friction
testing through metal and ceramic brackets, respectively. Over-
all, there was very little wear and no noticeable breaks after
sliding the wires through both metal and ceramic brackets. The
EDS composition analysis is shown in table S-VIII.
tome 21 > n82 > June 2023
International Orthodontics 2023; 21: 100753

Original article
Figure 2
SEM images (20.0 kV; 500
original magnification) of representative samples after friction testing with metal brackets (a) clear
ceramic; (b) white ceramic; (c) epoxy; (d) PTFE; (e) silicone; (f) GUMMETAL®; (g) stainless steel

tome 21 > n82 > June 2023

11
A. Zhou, S. Makowka, S. Warunek, M-Y Chen, T. Al-Jewair
Figure 3
SEM images (20.0 kV; 500
original magnification) of representative samples after friction testing with ceramic brackets (a) clear
ceramic; (b) white ceramic; (c) epoxy; (d) PTFE; (e) silicone; (f) GUMMETAL®; (g) stainless steel
Discussion
The study explored how coating GM with various materials
affects its mechanical, physical and aesthetic properties. The
most common materials used to coat orthodontic wires are
epoxy resins and PTFE [2,7,11,22,23]. There are also ceramic
coatings that typically used on orthodontic brackets to provide
an aesthetic appearance [24,25]. Thus, in addition to epoxy and
PTFE, this study explored ceramic coatings and silicone on GM.
These coatings can affect the surface quality and therefore
impact the aesthetics, wear resistance, corrosion resistance,
and mechanical properties [1,4,7].
Currently, there is an aesthetic rhodium-plated GM that the
manufacturer released in 2020. Albawardi et al. [16] found that
the frictional forces of aesthetic GM was higher than uncoated
GM and SS wires and the coating cracked and flaked upon
12
Original article
friction testing. The rhodium-plated GM is slight grey and thus,
not considered a truly aesthetic white archwire.
Before any mechanical testing of the wires, the surface char-
acteristics and aesthetics of the wires were assessed with a
Spectrophotometer and with SEM. The uncoated GM SEM images
showed a rough surface with pits and fissure similar to Alba-
wardi et al.'s findings [16]. SEM images of SS wires showed a
uniform and smooth surface. The clear ceramic coating, when
first viewed with the eye, had a slightly glossy appearance but
otherwise showed a similar appearance as uncoated GM. Under
the SEM, the clear ceramic coating had the most uniform
appearance with no noticeable pits or fissures.
From the colour analysis, the white ceramic DE* had a distin-
guishable difference in colour from an A1 shade. In addition, the
white ceramic coating was not consistent with each wire. Each
tome 21 > n82 > June 2023
International Orthodontics 2023; 21: 100753
white ceramic coated wire had slightly different shades of
white. The colourimeter measurement was an average of the
different shades with the white ceramic. The SEM images of the
white ceramic showed the least favourable surface quality
condition because it had the largest fissures and deepest pits.
This likely has led to higher frictional forces with metal and
ceramic brackets and was the highest among coated wires. The
silicone coating was very thin but was detectable by the EDS
analysis. The outer appearance of a silicone coated wire looked
like an uncoated GM wire, and thus was not aesthetic.
Orthodontic arch wires coated with epoxy and PTFE are com-
mercially available [2,6,22,26].
There is no commercially available GM coated with epoxy and
PTFE. From the colourimetry measurements, similar to white
ceramic, the epoxy was very distinguishable from the A1 shade.
Of the aesthetic coatings, the epoxy's white colour was the most
consistent among aesthetic wires. The SEM images of the epoxy
coating showed a more uniform surface texture since there were
less fissures than uncoated GM but a slight bumpy texture,
possibly from filler material. The PTFE's white colour was con-
sistently closest to A1 shade based on DE*in all colourimeter
settings. The PTFE coating added more uniformity to the surface
with less deep pits and fissures than uncoated GM. However,
flaking was seen in the PTFE coating.
In this study, static friction force was recorded for all groups.
Overall, the frictional forces were low. Kopsahilis et al. reported
similar frictional force levels when testing frictional behaviour of
GM [27]. Contributing factors to low frictional forces relates to 0-
degree angulation of the bracket and wire. This made the wire
interact more with the elastic ligatures and the base of the
bracket than with the bracket wings [27]. Some variation with
frictional forces could be related to the wire having some binding
between the bracket wings. The wire and bracket ligation were
achieved with elastic ties rather than SS ligatures. The wire and
ligature interface could have experienced binding while the wire
is being pulled through the bracket. Once static friction has been
overcome, a snapping action may have occurred with the ligature
and this process could repeat multiple times. This binding and
snapping may have contributed to the noise the universal
machine detects while recording the frictional force.
When compared according to bracket type, surprisingly, the
wires experienced more friction with the metal brackets than
with the ceramic brackets. Tanne et al. noted that ceramic
brackets were rougher than metal brackets which led to canine
retraction being slowed by 30% to 50% [28].
On the other hand, Cha et al. demonstrated that newer ceramic
brackets with a coated silica layer performed similarly to conven-
tional metal brackets [29]. This study used an artificial saliva for all
friction tests to simulate some intra oral conditions. Stannard et al.
found that artificial saliva itself could increase the frictional forces
between objects because the artificial salvia is a polar liquid
creating more attraction between the two surfaces [30].
tome 21 > n82 > June 2023
13
Original article
The white ceramic coating exhibited the most frictional force
among the coated wires with both bracket types. When compared
to uncoated GM and SS, white ceramic increased the frictional force
of 0.016
0.022-inch uncoated GM in both bracket types. Also, its
frictional forces with metal brackets was almost double that of the
SS wire groups. This can partly be attributed to the surface rough-
ness of the white ceramic coating material. Both PTFE and silicone
coatings exhibited lower frictional forces than both uncoated GM
control groups with ceramic brackets. Farronato et al. found that
PTFE coatings reduced friction compared to their uncoated coun-
terpart [10]. In addition, the coated wires had either similar or less
frictional force than both SS wires.
The force deflection rate of the uncoated 0.016
0.022-inch GM
was slightly higher than reported by Suzuki et al. who found the
force deflection rate of uncoated 0.016
0.022-inch GM to be
below 3 N/mm [15]. Murguma et al. showed that the elastic
modulus of coated aesthetic orthodontics wires was lower than
that of uncoated wires [6]. In this study, all coated wires pro-
duced a higher force deflection rate than the uncoated
0.016
0.022-inch GM. The coated wires used in this study
were different from those used by Murguma et al. and the
dimensions of the wires were also variable. Both SS wires
exhibited much higher force deflection rates than any of the
coated or uncoated GM wires. The increase of force deflection
rate was about 1 N/mm for every coating material besides PTFE.
PTFE resulted in the most increase in wire stiffness.
The yield strength was calculated from the stress/strain curve
produced by the three-point bending test with a 0.1 mm offset.
A noticeable change in the wire after the three-point bending
test was the cracking and peeling of all but silicone coatings at
the fulcrum area.
The corrosive resistance testing performed in this study was a
qualitative examination. Corrosion resistance is important in
orthodontics with respect to potential leaking of metal ions into
the oral cavity [31–33]. The corrosive saliva used in this study had
a pH of 2.3. This test was to determine how the wires performed
in an extreme environment like corrosive saliva. The coated
wires did not exhibit major loss of mass or noticeable peeling of
the coating layers. However, the colourimeter detected some
colour change with the epoxy coating in saliva and water
environments. Commercial aesthetic orthodontic wires have
been found to change colour overtime intraorally [8]. However,
limited inferences can be made with this test because it did not
measure potential leaked metal ions in solution. Although Kim
et al. has demonstrated that epoxy coated NiTi reduces release
of nickel ions [33], future studies should investigate this process.
From this study, coating material provides benefits and limitations
when compared to uncoated 0.016
0.22-inch GM (table VII). The
epoxy coatings allowed for a more aesthetic wire but increased
friction and stiffness. The PTFE coating allowed for a more aesthetic
wire and reduced friction but increased stiffness. A thin silicone
coating helped reduce friction, but the wire remained metallic
A. Zhou, S. Makowka, S. Warunek, M-Y Chen, T. Al-Jewair

Original article
TABLE VII
Added benefits and effects of coating materials on 0.016
0.022-inch GM wire

Coating material Friction on metal Friction on ceramic Force deflection rate Yield strength Esthetics Corrosion resistance Wear resistance

Clear ceramic + + + +   +

White ceramic + + + + +  +

Epoxy + + + + +  +

PTFE + – + + +  +

Silicone – – + +   +

"+'': Increase; "–'': Decrease; "'': stayed relatively the same.

looking with a slight increase in stiffness. The clear ceramic coating
provided a homogenous smooth surface but there was no aes-
thetic benefit or reduction in stiffness and friction. The white
ceramic provided a white colour wire, but the rough surface texture
resulted in increased friction. All the coatings increased the force
deflection rate and yield strength when compared to the base
0.016
0.22-inch GM. However, this study showed that the
coated wires had similar or less frictional force than
0.016
0.22-inch and 0.019
0.25-inch SS wires.
All coating materials provided corrosion resistance as well as
wear resistance to sliding against a bracket. However, these
coating materials cracked and peeled when a sharp bend was
placed in the wire with the three-point bending test. The results
of this study reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference
in mechanical, aesthetic, and physical properties between the
different coating materials, between coated GM and uncoated
GM, and between coated GM and SS.
This study has limitations. The coating protocols varied according
to the type of coating material applied. Some of the coating
methods required high intensity heat such as the PTFE and white
ceramic coatings. The high intensity heat may have impacted
the core-based GM wire properties such as its shape memory.
Coated orthodontic wires have been found to reach a target wire
size with the inner core metal alloy being smaller to fit both the
coating and metal alloy [6,12]. The wires used for coating in this
study had a core wire of 0.016
0.022-inch. The goal was to
make all coatings consistent in application to increase the core
wire to the same final dimension, but the coatings between
groups were of different sizes. Silicone produced the least
thickness while epoxy added the most which might have
affected the study outcomes. The rhodium-plated GM was diffi-
cult to obtain due to shipping complications. Therefore, this wire
was not used. Finally, the materials used in this study were
medically compliant but additional testing is needed before
intra-oral dental use.
Future studies are needed to further explore coated GM wires.
The study examined frictional forces when the bracket and wire
angulation was zero degrees. Future frictional studies should
include different angulations. A quantitative corrosion resistance
test should be conducted. This can be achieved by measuring
the ions before and after coated wires are soaked in a corrosive
solution to determine the degree of leeching. This study has
shown that coating wires can improve some aspects of the wire
properties but not all. Finally, orthodontists need to weigh the
benefits of coated orthodontic wires and associated manufactur-
ing costs.
Conclusion
The various coatings provide benefits and limitations when
compared to uncoated GM and SS. Coated wires had lower
frictional forces than uncoated SS wires when used with ceramic
brackets. However, coated wires had comparable frictional
forces with uncoated GM and SS wires with metal brackets.
Coated GM wires had good wear resistance after friction testing
and provided corrosion resistance to low pH saliva. Future
investigation of the materials used in this study is required to
further characterize their properties.
Ethical standard: For this study, no human participants or animals were
recruited by any of the authors.
Funding: The study was supported by a grant from the Japan Association
of Adult Orthodontists.
Contribution: Alan Zhou: conceptualization, methodology, data curation,
investigation, writing- original draft preparation.
Steven Makowka: investigation, writing- reviewing and editing.
Stephen Warunek: writing- reviewing and editing. ming chen: writing-
reviewing and editing.
Thikriat Al-Jewair: conceptualization, methodology, data curation, supervi-
sion, writing- reviewing and editing.
Disclosure of interest: The authors declare that they have no competing
interest.
Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article
can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.
1016/j.ortho.2023.100753.

tome 21 > n82 > June 2023

14
International Orthodontics 2023; 21: 100753
References
[1] Bandeira AM, dos Santos MP, Pulitini G, Elias
CN, da Costa MF. Influence of thermal or
chemical degradation on the frictional force of
an experimental coated NiTi wire. Angle
Orthod 2011;81:484–9.
[2] Kravitz ND. Aesthetic archwire. Orthod Pro-
ducts 2013 [Accessed June 2021: https://
www.kravitzorthodontics.com/assets/pdfs/
Aesthic-archwires.pdf].
[3] Kusy RP. A review of contemporary archwires:
their properties and characteristics. Angle
Orthod 1997;67:197–207.
[4] da Silva DL, Mattos CT, Simão RA, de Oliveira
Ruellas AC. Coating stability and surface char-
acteristics of aesthetic orthodontic coated
archwires. Angle Orthod 2013;83:994–1001.
[5] Krishnan M, Seema S, Kumar AV, et al.
Corrosion resistance of surface modified
nickel titanium archwires. Angle Orthod
2013;84:358–67.
[6] Muguruma T, Iijima M, Yuasa T, Kawaguchi
K, Mizoguchi I. Characterization of the coat-
ings covering aesthetic orthodontic archwires
and their influence on the bending and fric-
tional properties. Angle Orthod 2017;87:610–
7.
[7] Iijima M, Muguruma T, Brantley W, et al.
Effect of coating on properties of aesthetic
orthodontic nickel-titanium wires. Angle
Orthod 2012;82:319–25.
[8] da Silva DL, Mattos CT, de Araújo MV, de
Oliveira Ruellas AC. Colour stability and fluor-
escence of different orthodontic aesthetic
archwires. Angle Orthod 2013;83:127–32.
[9] Kameda T, Sato H, Oka S, Miyazaki A,
Ohkuma K, Terada K. Low temperature
polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) coating
improves the appearance of orthodontic
wires without changing their mechanical
properties. Dent Mater J 2020;39:721–34.
[10] Farronato G, Maijer R, Carìa MP, Esposito L,
Alberzoni D, Cacciatore G. The effect of Teflon
coating on the resistance to sliding of ortho-
dontic archwires. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:410–7.
[11] Kaphoor AA, Sundareswaran S. Aaesthetic
nickel titanium wires–how much do they deli-
ver? Eur J Orthod 2012;34:603–9.
[12] da Silva DL, Mattos CT, Sant' Anna EF, Ruellas
AC, Elias CN. Cross-section dimensions and
mechanical properties of aesthetic
tome 21 > n82 > June 2023
orthodontic coated archwires. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:S85–91.
[13] Hasegawa S. A concept of en bloc movement
of teeth using gummetal wire. Tokyo: Quin-
tessence Publishing; 2014.
[14] Nordstrom B, Shoji T, Anderson WC, et al.
Comparison of changes in irregularity and
transverse width with nickel-titanium and
niobium-titanium-tantalum-zirconium arch-
wires during initial orthodontic alignment in
adolescents: A double-blind randomized clin-
ical trial. Angle Orthod 2018;88:348–54.
[15] Schmeidl K, Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Gro-
cholewicz K. Clinical features and physical
properties of gummetal orthodontic wire in
comparison with dissimilar archwires: a criti-
cal review. Biomed Res Int
2021;2021:6611979.
[16] Albawardi A, Warunek S, Makowka S, Al-
Jewair T. Friction forces generated by aes-
thetic Gummetal(R) (Ti-Nb) orthodontic arch-
wires: a comparative in vitro study. Int Orthod
2022;20:100683.
[17] International Organization for Standardiza-
tion. Dentistry – Wires for use in orthodontics.
Geneva, Switzerland: BSI Standards Publica-
tion; 2014 [Accessed July 2021. https://
www.iso.org/standard/62223.html].
[18] Inami T, Tanimoto Y, Minami N, Yamaguchi
M, Kasai K. Colour stability of laboratory
glass-fiber-reinforced plastics for aesthetic
orthodontic wires. Korean J Orthod
2015;45:130–5.
[19] Subcommittee E12.04 on colour and appear-
ance analysis. Standard practice for calcula-
tion of colour tolerances and colour
differences from instrumentally measured
colour coordinates. ASTM-D2244-2022 EDI-
TION. Accessed July 20, 2021: https://
www.astm.org/d2244-21.html. 2022.
[20] Alghazali N, Preston A, Moaleem M, Jarad F,
Aldosari AA, Smith P. The effects of different
spectrophotometric modes on colour mea-
surement of resin composite and porcelain
materials. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent
2018;26:163–73.
[21] Johnston WM, Kao EC. Assessment of appear-
ance match by visual observation and clinical
colourimetry. J Dent Res 1989;68:819–22.
15
Original article
[22] Batista DM, Faccini M, Valarelli FP, et al.
Attractiveness of different aesthetic ortho-
dontic wires. Dental Press J Orthod
2020;25:27–32.
[23] Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D. Ex vivo surface
and mechanical properties of coated ortho-
dontic archwires. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:661–7.
[24] Angolkar PV, Kapila S, Duncanson Jr MG,
Nanda RS. Evaluation of friction between
ceramic brackets and orthodontic wires of
four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1990;98:499–506.
[25] Matias M, Freitas MR, Freitas KMS, Janson G,
Higa RH, Francisconi MF. Comparison of
deflection forces of aesthetic archwires com-
bined with ceramic brackets. J Appl Oral Sci
2018;26:e20170220.
[26] Rongo R, Valletta R, Bucci R, et al. In vitro
biocompatibility of nickel-titanium aesthetic
orthodontic archwires. Angle Orthod
2016;86:789–95.
[27] Kopsahilis IE, Drescher D. Friction behavior of
the wire material Gummetal®. J Orofac
Orthop 2022;83:59–72.
[28] Tanne K, Matsubara S, Shibaguchi T, Sakuda
M. Wire friction from ceramic brackets during
simulated canine retraction. Angle Orthod
1991;61:285–90 [discussion 91-2].
[29] Cha JY, Kim KS, Hwang CJ. Friction of con-
ventional and silica-insert ceramic brackets in
various bracket-wire combinations. Angle
Orthod 2007;77:100–7.
[30] Stannard JG, Gau JM, Hanna MA. Compara-
tive friction of orthodontic wires under dry
and wet conditions. Am J Orthod
1986;89:485–91.
[31] Sugisawa H, Kitaura H, Ueda K, et al. Corro-
sion resistance and mechanical properties of
titanium nitride plating on orthodontic wires.
Dent Mater J 2018;37:286–92.
[32] Ba̧cela J, Labowska MB, Detyna J, Ziȩty A,
l
Michalak I. Functional coatings for orthodon-
tic archwires-a review. Materials (Basel)
2020;13:3257. doi: 10.3390/ma13153257.
PMID: 32707959; PMCID: PMC7435379.
[33] Kim H, Johnson JW. Corrosion of stainless
steel, nickel-titanium, coated nickel-titanium,
and titanium orthodontic wires. Angle Orthod
1999;69:39–44.