ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Cross-section dimensions and mechanical

properties of esthetic orthodontic coated
archwires
Dayanne Lopes da Silva,a Claudia Trindade Mattos,b Eduardo Franzotti Sant’ Anna,c
Anto^ nio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas,c and Carlos Nelson Eliasd
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Introduction: There has been continuing interest in the development and use of esthetic and effective orthodon-
tic archwires. The aims of this study were to evaluate the inner alloy core dimensions of 4 brands of as-received
esthetic coated wires and their mechanical properties before and after 21 days of oral exposure, compared with
conventional stainless steel and nickel titanium wires. Methods: Four groups (Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif;
TP Orthodontics, LaPorte, Ind; Orthometric, Beijing, China; and Trianeiro, Rio Claro, Sa~o Paulo, Brazil) of ortho-
dontic archwires were tested. Five properties were evaluated: inner wire dimensions, modulus of elasticity, mod-
ulus of resilience, maximum deflection force, and load deflection curve characteristics. Images of the transverse
sections from the specimens were made with a stereoscope. The inner alloy core dimensions of each wire were
measured by using Image Pro Plus software (version 4.5; Media Cybernetics, Silver Spring, Md). All specimens
were tested in a universal testing machine in a 3-point bending test. Results: Coated wires of the Ortho Orga-
nizers and Trianeiro groups showed greater reductions in their inner alloy core dimensions and produced lower
loading and unloading forces and lower modulus of elasticity, modulus of resilience, and maximum deflection
force values than did their control wires. Inner alloy core dimensions and the mechanical behavior of coated
wires practically did not differ from the control wires in the TP Orthodontics and Orthometric groups.
Conclusions: The reduction on the inner alloy core dimensions to compensate for the coating thickness seems
to be the variable responsible for greater changes in the mechanical properties of esthetic coated wires. (Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:S85-91)

M
uch progress has been made in the develop-
ment of esthetic clear and translucent brackets
for use in labial orthodontics.1 However, the
most effective wires continue to be manufactured from
efficient metal alloys. They have the flexibility, strength,
and chemical resistance needed for orthodontic pur-
poses. Nevertheless, they are clearly visible to observers,
and patients with esthetic brackets might resist their use.
a
PhD student, Department of Orthodontics, Universidade Federal do Rio de Ja-
neiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
b
Substitute professor, Department of Orthodontics, Universidade Federal do Rio
de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
c
Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
d
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science, Insti-
tuto Militar de Engenharia, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the prod-
ucts or companies described in this article.
Reprint requests to: Ant^onio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas, Av. Professor Rodolpho
Paulo Rocco, 325, Ilha do Fund~ao, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, CEP:
21941-617, Brazil; e-mail, antonioruellas@yahoo.com.br.
Submitted, May 2012; revised and accepted, September 2012.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright Ó 2013 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.09.009
Metallic archwires coated with colored polymers or
inorganic materials are currently the solution to this es-
thetic problem.2 Materials used in coating are polymers
such as synthetic fluorine-containing resin or epoxy
resin composed mainly of polytetrafluoroethylyene,
which is used to simulate tooth color.3
The process of applying this coating to the archwire
includes some surface treatment on the wire and the
use of clean compressed air as a transport medium for
the atomized polytetrafluoroethylyene particles to coat
the wire. The set is further heat treated in a chamber fur-
nace.4 The mechanical properties of metallic archwires
could be affected during this process and by possible
changes on their inner alloy core dimensions to compen-
sate for the thickness of the coating layer.
The mechanical properties of orthodontic archwires
can be assessed by using a 3-point bending test, which
evaluates the load-deflection properties, considered
the most important parameters to determine the biologic
nature of tooth movement,5 and provides information
on the behavior of wires when subjected to deflection
in the horizontal and vertical directions.6,7 No studies
S85
S86
Table I. Characteristics of the archwires used in the study
Group Manufacturer
I Ortho Organizers, Carlsbad, Calif
Control: Pro Form Shiny Bright
Coated: Tooth Tone Plastic Coated
II TP Orthodontics, LaPorte, Ind
Control: Shiny Bright
Coated: Aesthetic Shiny Bright
III Orthometric, Beijing, China
Control: Flexy Super Elastic
Coated: Esthetic Flexy Super Elastic
IV Trianeiro, Rio Claro, S~ao Paulo, Brazil
Control: NiTi wire
Coated: Coated wire NiTi
CrNi, Chromium-nickel; NiTi, nickel-titanium.
have been conducted to examine the inner alloy core
dimensions of esthetic coated stainless steel and
nickel-titanium archwires and their mechanical proper-
ties after oral exposure.
The aims of this research were to investigate the inner
alloy core dimensions of as-received esthetic coated
archwires and their mechanical properties (3-point
bending test) before and after oral exposure, compared
with conventional stainless steel and nickel-titanium
archwires.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Sample size calculations were performed for each
test. A sample size of at least 5 wire segments per group
was required to detect a difference of 0.001 of an inch in
the dimensions between the coated and the control
wires, with a standard deviation of 0.0006, a significance
level of 5%, and a test power of 0.85. Based on the re-
sults from a pilot study, a sample size calculation was
performed showing that at least 5 as-received and 10
postclinical wire segments would be enough to detect
a 10% difference in the mechanical properties tested in
this study with a significance level of 5% and a test
power of 0.85.
Four brands of esthetic coated archwires (Ortho Or-
ganizers, Carlsbad, Calif; TP Orthodontics, LaPorte,
Ind; Orthometric, Beijing, China; and Trianeiro, Rio
Claro, S~ao Paulo, Brazil) were tested, and their respective
control counterparts (conventional stainless steel and
nickel-titanium archwires) were evaluated (Table I).
The sample included 176 wire segments at least 20
mm in length. Eighty wire segments were from as-
received archwires (5 specimens of each kind of wire
used to measure the inner alloy core dimensions, and 5
were used in the 3-point bending test), and 96 segments
(12 specimens of each kind of wire used in the 3-point
bending test) were retrieved after 21 days in oral cavities.
April 2013  Vol 143  Issue 4  Supplement 1
Silva et al
Cross-section size (in) Composition Coating surface
0.018 3 0.025 Stainless steel (CrNi) -
0.018 3 0.024 All surfaces
0.018 3 0.025 Stainless steel (CrNi) -
0.018 3 0.025 Labial
0.018 3 0.025 NiTi -
0.018 3 0.025 Labial
0.016 3 0.022 NiTi -
0.018 3 0.024 All surfaces
The retrieved wire segments were obtained from
12 subjects. Ethical approval was obtained for this inves-
tigation from the ethics in research committee of the In-
stitute of Public Health Studies from the Federal
University of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil (process
0034.0.239.000-11). Informed consent form was signed
by all patients who met the following criteria: good oral
hygiene, no caries, and no systemic changes.
Two metal brackets (Morelli, Sorocaba, S~ao Paulo,
Brazil) were bonded to teeth on each hemiarch with a dis-
tance between them of at least 20 mm. The coated wire
segment was tied into the slot, and its control wire seg-
ment was tied juxtaposed to the upper base of the
brackets’ wings by using stainless steel 0.010-in ligatures
(Morelli) and ligature pliers (Fig 1). A split-mouth design
was used in all groups. The groups were allocated ran-
domly to each hemiarch by using random number tables.
The generator and executor of the randomization were
separate persons (C.T.M. and D.L.S.). Oral hygiene in-
structions were given, and the patients used the same
types of toothbrush, toothpaste, and dental floss
throughout the study. The subjects were told not to
use any other oral agents, including oral irrigators or an-
timicrobial mouthrinses.
In every participant, the specimens were placed and
removed by the same operator (D.L.S.). The subjects
were not aware of which wire was placed in each quad-
rant in the mouth. Since the colors of the coated wires
differed slightly from brand to brand, it was not possible
to blind the operator to the types of coated wire.
After 21 days, the wire segments were removed and in-
dividually placed in an ultrasound cleaner (Crist ofoli;
Campo Mour~ao, Parana, Brazil) immersed in a multiuse de-
tergent (Amway, Ada, Mich) for 30 minutes, so that organic
debris could be removed. The same procedure was used for
the as-received specimens. After in-vivo clinical exposure,
all samples were subjected to mechanical testing.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Silva et al S87

Fig 1. Orthodontic appliances in the oral environment: A, frontal view; B, side view. C, Control wire
segment; E, esthetic coated wire segment.

Fig 2. Stereoscope images of inner alloy core height and width (3 measurements of each kind): A,
group I (Ortho Organizers) coated wire; B, group I control wire. Original magnification, 45 times.

Five as-received wires were taken from each group
and included, with their transverse section facing up,
in plastic tubes (height, 10 mm; diameter, 5 mm) filled
with light-curing composite resin (Monolok2; Rocky
Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, Colo). Then the sam-
ples were ground in a water-cooled polishing machine
(Politriz DP-9U2; Struers A/S, Copenhagen, Denmark)
with 360-, 400-, 600-, and 1200-grit abrasive papers
under refrigeration.
The images of the transverse section from each spec-
imen were made with a stereoscope at 45 times magni-
fication (model SZ61; Olympus, Tokyo, Japan). The
inner alloy core height and width (3 measurements of
each kind) of each wire were measured by using Image
Pro Plus software (version 4.5; Media Cybernetics, Silver
Spring, Md) (Fig 2). A total of 60 readings, including
height and width, were measured in each group.
The wires were tested according to a 3-point bending
test (ISO 15841). The span length of 10 mm, the
crosshead speed of 6.0 mm per minute, and the radii
of the fulcrum and the indenter of 0.1 mm were used
as suggested by the ISO standardization for orthodontic
wire mechanical tests. The load was applied with a 50-N
load cell in a universal testing machine (model DL
10000; Emic, Parana, Brazil) to the middle of the speci-
mens, and the flexural strength values were recorded
with Tesc software (Emic). Deflection was carried out
with a centrally placed indenter moved by a computer-
controlled stepper motor. Five as-received and 12 post-
clinical specimens for control and coated wires of each
group were tested for a deflection of 3.1 mm, the force
was registered, and the hysteresis curves produced on
the chart’s recorder were compared. For stainless steel
wires, the testing was performed at room temperature,
and for nickel-titanium wires at 37 C.
The modulus of elasticity was calculated in the linear
portion of force-deflection curves of each specimen us-
ing the equation

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics April 2013  Vol 143  Issue 4  Supplement 1
S88 Silva et al

Table II. Means, standard deviations, and P values of independent-samples t test between control and coated wires
in each group for wire dimensions (in)
Measured inner alloy core dimensions Control 3 coated

Stated dimensions Height Width Height Width

Group Height Width Mean 6 SD Mean 6 SD P value P value

I
Control 0.018 0.025 0.01811 6 0.00006 0.02513 6 0.00004 \0.001 \0.001
Coated 0.018 0.024 0.01614 6 0.00009 0.02211 6 0.00009
II
Control 0.018 0.025 0.01802 6 0.00003 0.02503 6 0.00001 0.517 0.503
Coated 0.018 0.025 0.01803 6 0.00003 0.02503 6 0.00001
III
Control 0.018 0.025 0.01807 6 0.00009 0.02513 6 0.00012 0.599 \0.001
Coated 0.018 0.025 0.01810 6 0.00009 0.02351 6 0.00011
IV
Control 0.016 0.022 0.01616 6 0.00004 0.02204 6 0.00005 \0.001 \0.001
Coated 0.018 0.024 0.01586 6 0.00008 0.02172 6 0.00014

Table III. Comparisons of modulus of elasticity, modulus of resilience, and maximum deflection force of as-received
and postclinical control and coated wires in each group
Modulus of elasticity (GPa) Mean 6 SD Modulus of resilience (N.mm) Mean 6 SD Maximum deflection force (N) Mean 6 SD

Group As-received Postclinical As-received Postclinical As-received Postclinical

I
Control 210.62 (10.0)aA 180.28 (7.12)bA 4.15 (0.11)aA 5.30 (0.18)bA 31.16 (0.23)aA 28.70 (0.27)bA
Coated 126.15 (4.21)aB 122.57 (6.31)aB 3.72 (0.09)aB 4.44 (0.25)bB 20.43 (0.29)aB 19.60 (0.34)bB
II
Control 205.32 (2.54)aA 172.82 (6.05)bA 2.63 (0.05)aA 5.45 (0.42)bA 29.76 (0.28)aA 28.33 (0.50)bA
Coated 202.26 (5.83)aA 167.51 (13.34)bA 2.70 (0.04)aA 3.34 (0.17)bB 29.68 (1.04)aA 27.54 (0.33)bB
III
Control 89.71 (10.50)aA 93.98 (3.59)aA 20.28 (0.29)aA 21.12 (1.09)aA 13.19 (0.19)aA 14.34 (0.53)bA
Coated 86.51 (13.54)aA 89.37 (5.57)aA 20.03 (1.23)aA 20.61 (0.57)aA 13.25 (0.75)aA 13.99 (0.44)aA
IV
Control 88.69 (2.89)aA 99.84 (4.70)bA 16.62 (0.53)aA 17.91 (0.35)bA 10.27 (0.07)aA 10.41 (0.24)aA
Coated 77.22 (3.38)aB 79.17 (6.41)aB 15.72 (1.05)aB 15.85 (0.20)aB 9.77 (0.17)aB 9.97 (0.23)aB
a and b, Different letters mean a statistically significant difference (P\0.05) between as-received and postclinical samples in each group (same line).
A and B, Different letters mean a statistically significant difference (P \0.05) between control and coated wires of each kind, as-received or post-
clinical (same column).

PL3 Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was applied to verify the nor-

E5 ; mality of the results, and the independent-samples t test
4BH 3 F
where P is load, L is span length, B is wire width, H is wire
height, and F is deflection. Resilience was measured by
the modulus of resilience and expressed as the amount
of elastic strain energy per unit of volume. This modulus
was computed by integrating the area under the linear
portion of the stress deflection diagram with OriginPro
software (version 8.0; OriginLab, Northampton, Mass).
Statistical analysis
A standard statistical software package (version 16.0;
SPSS, Chicago, Ill) was used for data analysis. The
was used to compare the coated and control wires of
each brand and to compare the as-received and postclin-
ical samples of each kind of wire.
RESULTS
Measured inner alloy core and nominal cross-section
dimensions for as-received coated and control wire seg-
ments used in this investigation are shown in Table II. In
general, most measured values for coated wires were
smaller than the nominal sizes given by the manufac-
turers, and there was a significant difference between
the control and the coated cross-section dimensions.

April 2013  Vol 143  Issue 4  Supplement 1 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Silva et al
Fig 3. Average force-deflection curves for each group of as-received and postclinical samples.
Group II (TP Orthodontics) was the only one that practi-
cally maintained the nominal sizes, and there was no sig-
nificant difference between the control and coated
cross-section dimensions in this group. Coated wires
from group III (Orthometric) showed an average reduc-
tion of only 0.0014 in in their stated width. There were
further reductions in both height and width of coated
wires in groups I (Ortho Organizers) and IV (Trianeiro),
when compared with the stated dimensions.
Table III shows the mean values, standard deviations,
and comparisons of modulus of elasticity, modulus of
resilience, and maximum deflection force for control
and coated wire segments in each group, both for as-
received and postclinical specimens. As-received and
postclinical coated wires in groups I (Ortho Organizers)
and IV (Trianeiro) showed lower modulus of elasticity,
modulus of resilience, and maximum deflection force
values when compared with their controls. No significant
differences in modulus of elasticity and maximum de-
flection force values between the control and coated
wires were observed in group II (TP Orthodontics).
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
S89
However, lower modulus of resilience values were ob-
served in the as-retrieved coated wire segments in this
group when compared with their controls. Group III (Or-
thometric) showed no significant differences between
the control and coated wires in the mechanical proper-
ties evaluated in all times tested.
The representative bending plots for as-received and
postclinical coated and control wires of each group are
shown in Figure 3. The bending curves for as-received
and postclinical control and coated wire segments in
groups II (TP Orthodontics) and III (Orthometric) were
similar. However, there were considerable general differ-
ences in bending deformation behavior for the control
and coated wire segments in groups I (Ortho Organizers)
and IV (Trianeiro). In these groups, coated wires pro-
duced lower loading and unloading forces than did the
control wires.
DISCUSSION
The performance of an archwire depends on the wire
material and its cross-sectional geometry. Smaller
April 2013  Vol 143  Issue 4  Supplement 1
S90
archwires are selected to ensure lower forces in the initial
stage of fixed appliance mechanotherapy, but they result
in inadequate control of tooth movement, since there
would be much play between the wire and the bracket.8
In the final stages, it is necessary to obtain better en-
gagement between the wire and the bracket with larger
wires for better control of tooth movement. Thus, wire
dimension is a critical and important component in force
delivery, but manufacturers differ in their abilities to
produce wires accurately.9-11
Among the wires measured, those from TP Ortho-
dontics were the only ones that practically maintained
the nominal sizes, and there was no significant differ-
ence between control cross-section dimensions and
coated inner alloy core dimensions. In general, most in-
ner alloy core dimensions measured for the coated wires
were smaller than the nominal sizes given by the manu-
facturers, and there was a significant difference between
the control and coated cross-section sizes. The archwires
with coating on all surfaces from groups I (Ortho Orga-
nizers) and IV (Trianeiro) showed the greatest reductions
in their inner alloy core height and width compared with
the stated dimensions (Table II). In one of the 2 groups
with coating only on the vestibular surface (group III, Or-
thometric), the inner alloy core width was different from
the stated width (Table II).
Coated wires can have smaller inner alloy core dimen-
sions to compensate for the thickness of the coating
layer. That is why both height and width might be af-
fected when all surfaces receive a coating layer, and
width is sometimes affected when only the vestibular
surface is coated. However, clinicians must be aware
that manufacturers generally state the cross-section di-
mensions of the archwires, including the coating thick-
ness, and not the real size of only the stainless steel or
nickel-titanium material. Therefore, these archwires are
not expected to have a mechanical behavior similar to
an uncoated archwire with the same dimensions.
Changes in the stated wire dimensions might influence
torsional clearance and stiffness.9,10
Many orthodontists are likely to use the nominal wire
size as their guide in some clinical situations. The results
from this study highlight the importance of considering
larger nominal wire size than would normally be selected
when using archwires with all surfaces coated. Because
the amount of torsional clearance between wire and
bracket depends on the slot and wire dimensions, as
well as the degree of wire rounding, an undersized
wire results in poorer fit in the bracket slot and might
lead to less control during tooth movement.12
The advantages of a 3-point bending test are the
close simulation to clinical applications and its ability
to differentiate wires with superelastic properties.5 In
April 2013  Vol 143  Issue 4  Supplement 1 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Silva et al
addition, it offers a high degree of reproducibility that
facilitates comparisons between studies.13 This test pro-
duced load-deflection diagrams consisting of an upper
loading curve and a lower unloading curve. The loading
curve represents the force needed to engage the wire in
the bracket, whereas the unloading curve represents the
forces delivered to the teeth during treatment stages.14
The modulus of elasticity corresponds to the elastic
stiffness or the rigidity of the material.15 Increased
values indicate stiffer wires.11 Modulus of resilience is
the ability of a material to store energy when deformed
elastically and to deliver it when the strain is removed.15
Resilience tells the orthodontist how much potential en-
ergy can be recovered from the wire.
In this study, for comparisons, the wire configuration
and the alloy used in the manufacture of the control and
coated archwires in each group were identical. These re-
sults show differences between the stated and the mea-
sured dimensions mainly in the coated wires.
Furthermore, there are variabilities with respect to me-
chanical properties in the control and coated wires. As-
received and postclinical coated wires in groups I (Ortho
Organizers) and IV (Trianeiro) showed lower modulus of
elasticity, modulus of resilience, and maximum deflec-
tion force values when compared with their controls
(Table III). The analysis of the bending curves in these
groups showed that coated wires produced lower load-
ing and unloading forces than did the control wires
(Fig 3). These archwires with a coating layer on all sur-
faces showed greater reductions in their inner alloy
core dimensions; this could explain their different me-
chanical behavior. These results agree with those of
Elayyan et al,2 where coated wires also showed lower
loading and unloading forces compared with uncoated
wires, and the authors suggested that it was almost cer-
tainly because of the decrease in the size of the active
nickel-titanium wires in them. However, the authors
did not measure the cross-section size of the wires and
evaluated only 1 type of archwire.
On the contrary, inner alloy core dimensions of
coated wires in group II (TP Orthodontics) practically
did not differ from the control wires. In group III (Ortho-
metric), only a decrease in width, where the coating was
applied, was noted. Both groups had a coating layer only
on the archwire’s labial surface. The bending curves for
these groups were similar when comparing as-received
and postclinical control and coated wires (Fig 3).
The major point an orthodontist should consider
when selecting a particular wire size is the stiffness of
the wire or its load-deflection rate. These differences
in the mechanical properties between coated and control
wires are probably due to deviations from stated sizes, or
variations in material properties and the method of
Silva et al
applying the coating layer on the wires; this might have
been heat treatment. Small changes in cross-section size
produce large changes in the load deflection.11
Ideally, manufacturers should keep inner alloy core
dimensions the same and apply a coating layer on the la-
bial surface of the wire that does not compromise its ac-
tual size, as shown in group II (TP Orthodontics). In other
words, it would be appropriate for orthodontists to have
at their disposal coated esthetic archwires with their real
metallic dimensions matching their stated dimensions
and thus having the same properties as identical solid
stainless steel or nickel-titanium wires. Moreover, a coat-
ing layer only on the labial surface, which would not be
in contact with brackets, could probably provide better
bracket-wire engagement with no interference from
this layer.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Groups with a coating layer on all surfaces showed
greater reductions in their inner alloy core dimen-
sions to compensate for the thickness of the coating
layer. These as-received and postclinical coated
wires produced lower loading and unloading forces
and lower modulus of elasticity, modulus of resil-
ience, and maximum deflection force values than
did their control wires.
2. The mechanical behavior of the groups whose inner
alloy core dimensions practically did not differ from
the control wires was similar when comparing the as-
received and postclinical control and coated wires.
3. The reduction of the inner alloy core dimensions
seems to be the variable responsible for greater
changes in the mechanical properties of coated
archwires, along with variations in the materials’
properties.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
S91
REFERENCES
1. Russell JS. Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod 2005;32:
146-63.
2. Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D. Mechanical properties of coated
superelastic archwires in conventional and self-ligating orthodon-
tic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:213-7.
3. Ramadan AA. Removing hepatitis C virus from polytetrafluoro-
ethylyene-coated orthodontic archwires and other dental instru-
ments. East Mediterr Health J 2009;9:274-8.
4. Husmann P, Bourauel C, Wessinger M, J€ager A. The frictional behav-
ior of coated guiding archwires. J Orofac Orthop 2002;63:199-211.
5. Krishnan V, Kumar K. Mechanical properties and surface charac-
teristics of three archwire alloys. Angle Orthod 2004;74:825-31.
6. Kapila S, Sachdeva R. Mechanical properties and clinical applica-
tions of orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1989;96:100-9.
7. Walker M, White R, Kula K. Effect of fluoride prophylactic agents
on the mechanical properties of nickel-titanium-based orthodon-
tic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:662-9.
8. Juvvadi SR, Kailasam V, Padmanabhan S, Chitharanjan AB. Phys-
ical, mechanical, and flexural properties of 3 orthodontic wires: an
in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:623-30.
9. Meling T, Ødegaard J, Meling E. On mechanical properties of
square and rectangular stainless steel wires tested in torsion. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:310-20.
10. Meling T, Ødegaard J. On the variability of cross-sectional dimen-
sions and torsional properties of rectangular nickel-titanium arch
wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:546-57.
11. Burstone CJ. Variable-modulus orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1981;
80:1-16.
12. Meling T, Ødegaard J, Meling E. A theoretical evaluation of the in-
fluence of variation in bracket slot height and wire rounding on the
amount of torsional play between bracket and wire. Kieferorthopa-
dische Mitteilungen 1993;7:41-8.
13. Wilkinson PD, Dysart PS, Hood JA, Herbison GP. Load-deflection
characteristics of superelastic nickel-titanium orthodontic wires.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:483-95.
14. Segner D, Ibe D. Properties of superelastic wires and their relevance
to orthodontic treatment. Eur J Orthod 1995;17:395-402.
15. Brantley WA. Orthodontic wires. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T, edi-
tors. Orthodontic materials: scientific and clinical aspects. Stutt-
gart, Germany, and New York: Thieme; 2001. p. 77-103.
April 2013  Vol 143  Issue 4  Supplement 1