ORIGINAL ARTICLE

 

Analysis of mechanical properties and forces produced by transpalatal bars made from low-nickel alloy

 

 

Matheus M. Pithon^I; Rogério L. dos Santos^I; Ana Maria Bolognese^II; Eduardo Franzotti Sant´anna^II; Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza^II

^IDDS, MSc, Doctorate Student in Orthodontics, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
^IIDD, MSc, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
^IIIDepartment of Orthodontics, Dental School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Correspondence

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

AIM: This study evaluated assess the mechanical properties and forces produced by transpalatal bars made from low-nickel alloy.
METHODS: Using a template, a single operator made all transpalatal bars from 0.032" and 0.036" wires of two different alloys, thus originating four groups, namely: A8 (0.032" conventional stainless steel), B8 (0.032" low-nickel stainless steel), A9 (0.036" conventional stainless steel), and B9 (0.036" low-nickel stainless steel). The bars were then activated and mounted onto a device developed to serve as a support for mechanical assay in a universal testing machine (Emic DL 10.000). The values of resilience and ductility were obtained using the Origin 8 software.
RESULTS: No statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) were observed between Groups A8 and B8 neither between A9 and B9 for 0.5-, 1.0-, and 5-mm deformations. However, statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) were found in all groups for 15-mm deformation. Groups B8 and B9 showed greater ductility and resilience compared to groups A8 and A9, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Low-nickel stainless steel transpalatal bars release the same amount of force for activations less than 10 mm compared to those made from conventional stainless steel. Mechanically, the low-nickel stainless steel bars are more ductile and resilient.

Keywords: stainless steel, nickel, orthodontics.

---

 

 

Full text available only in PDF format.

 

 

References

1. Goshgarian RA. Orthodontic palatal arche wires. United States Government Patent Office; 1972.         [ Links ]

2. Dahlquist A, Gebauer U, Ingervall B. The effect of a transpalatal arch for the correction of first molar rotation. Eur J Orthod. 1996; 18: 257-67.         [ Links ]

3. Garcia-Rojas Guerra H. A modified transpalatal arch. J Clin Orthod 2002; 36: 210.         [ Links ]

4. Kupietzky A, Tal E. The transpalatal arch: an alternative to the Nance appliance for space maintenance. Pediatr Dent. 2007; 29: 235-8.         [ Links ]

5. Tsibel G, Kuftinec MM. A bonded transpalatal arch. J Clin Orthod. 2004; 38: 513-5; quiz 487-518.         [ Links ]

6. Kojima Y, Fukui H. Effects of transpalatal arch on molar movement produced by mesial force: a finite element simulation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134: 335 e1-7; discussion 335-6.         [ Links ]

7. Zablocki HL, McNamara Jr JA, Franchi L, Baccetti T. Effect of the transpalatal arch during extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133: 852-60.         [ Links ]

8. Counts AL, Miller MA, Khakhria ML, Strange S. Nickel allergy associated with a transpalatal arch appliance. J Orofac Orthop. 2002; 63: 509-15.         [ Links ]

9. Bishara SE, Barrett RD, Selim MI. Biodegradation of orthodontic appliances. Part II. Changes in the blood level of nickel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993; 103: 115-9.         [ Links ]

10. Eliades T, Athanasiou AE. In vivo aging of orthodontic alloys: implications for corrosion potential, nickel release, and biocompatibility. Angle Orthod. 2002; 72: 222-37.         [ Links ]

11. Peltonen L. Nickel sensitivity in the general population. Contact Dermatitis. 1979; 5: 27-32.         [ Links ]

12. Bishara SE. Oral lesions caused by an orthodontic retainer: a case report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995; 108: 115-7.         [ Links ]

13. Lowey MN. Allergic contact dermatitis associated with the use of an Interlandi headgear in a patient with a history of atopy. Br Dent J. 1993; 175: 67-72.         [ Links ]

14. Greig DG. Contact dermatitis reaction to a metal buckle on a cervical headgear. Br Dent J. 1983; 155: 61-2.         [ Links ]

15. Menezes LM, Quintao CA, Bolognese AM. Urinary excretion levels of nickel in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 635-8.         [ Links ]

16. Thyssen JP, Linneberg A, Menne T, Nielsen NH, Johansen JD. The association between hand eczema and nickel allergy has weakened among young women in the general population following the Danish nickel regulation: results from two cross-sectional studies. Contact Dermatitis. 2009; 61: 342-8.         [ Links ]

17. Kusy RP. Types of corrosion in removable appliances: annotated cases and preventive measures. Clin. Orthod. Res. 2000; 3: 230-9.         [ Links ]

 

 

Correspondence to:
Margareth Maria Gomes de Souza
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro - UFRJ
Faculdade de Odontologia - Depto. de Ortodontia
Av. Prof. Rodolpho Paulo Rocco, 325
Ilha do Fundão - Rio de Janeiro
CEP: 21941-617 - RJ - Brasil
E-mail: margasouzaster@gmail.com

Received for publication: October 06, 2009
Accepted: March 03, 2010