Article in PDF
How to Cite
Citation Manager
Readers' Comments (0)
Audio Visual Article Statistics
Link
to PUBMED
Print this Article
Send to a Friend
Advertisers
Access Statistics Resources
Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."
Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
E-mail: drrajendrak1@rediffmail.com
On May 11,2011
Dr. Shankar P.R.
"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."
Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
E-mail: ravi.dr.shankar@gmail.com
On April 2011 Anuradha
Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.
Dr. Anuradha
E-mail: anuradha2nittur@gmail.com
On Jan 2020
Original article / research
Full Version
Frictional Resistance of Non Coated and Epoxy Coated Superelastic NiTi Wires used for Aligning in Three Types of Brackets
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Nishanth Sivakumar,
Postgraduate, Department of Orthodontics, SRM Dental College, Ramapuram, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
E-mail: nishanthsivakumar@gmail.com
Introduction: Coated archwires are preferred in combination with aesthetic orthodontic brackets by orthodontists over non metallic aesthetic archwires. Studies evaluating the frictional properties of epoxy coated round superelastic Nickel Titanium (NiTi) archwires are limited to stainless steel brackets.
Aim: To evaluate and compare the frictional resistance of an epoxy coated 0.016*" superelastic NiTi archwire in stainless steel, composite and ceramic brackets and to compare it with the frictional resistance generated by non coated 0.016*" superelastic NiTi archwire in same brackets.
Materials and Methods: An in-vitro experimental study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics at SRM Dental College, Ramapuram Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, from January to February 2020. Frictional resistance of 30 epoxy coated aesthetic 0.016*" upper superelastic NiTi wires (G4™ Nickel Titanium, 0.016*, Upper Trueform™ I, Tooth-Colored) and 30 conventional 0.016*" upper superelastic NiTi wires (G4™ Nickel Titanium, 0.016*, Upper Trueform™) from G&H® orthodontics while sliding across three different types of brackets were evaluated. Twenty stainless steel (Gemini® 3M unitek, Monrovia, California), 20 composite (FLI® RMO, Denver, Colo.), and 20 gemini clear ceramic (Gemini clear ® 3M unitek, Monrovia, California) 0.022×0.028" Slot Roth prescription maxillary first premolar brackets were used. The brackets and archwires were divided into six groups of different bracket and archwire combination with 10 samples in each. An Instron testing machine with a 10 N tension was used to measure the frictional resistance. The obtained values were analysed using One way ANOVA and followed by Post Hoc Tukey’s test HSD for multiple comparison.
Results: Coated wires generated significantly high friction in ceramic brackets (136.90±3.79 gms) followed by composite brackets (125.66±3.44 gms) and stainless steel brackets (92.53±8.70 gms). Non coated wires generated significantly high friction with ceramic brackets (89.60±2.90 gms) whereas the friction generated in composite (70.87±5.79 gms) and stainless steel brackets (67.70±2.80 gms) was not significantly different.
Conclusion: Epoxy coating increased the frictional resistance generated by the 0.016* superelastic NiTi archwires irrespective of bracket materials. The coated wires generated less friction in composite brackets compared to ceramic brackets. Further clinical trial are recommended to evaluate the aligning efficacy of these archwires in aesthetic brackets.
Ceramic brackets, Coated archwires, Composite brackets, Nickel titanium archwires, Orthodontic friction
There is a constant need for orthodontic brackets and archwires with acceptable aesthetics and adequate clinical performance due to the increasing demand for aesthetic appliances among the orthodontic patients. Non metallic aesthetic brackets made of mono crystalline or polycrystalline ceramic and composite polymers have demonstrated adequate aesthetic and mechanical properties for routine clinical use (1),(2),(3),(4). On contrary, non metallic aesthetic archwires had not demonstrated desirable mechanical properties and coated metallic archwires are preferred by clinicians, in combination with aesthetic brackets (5),(6).
Many aesthetic coating material including teflon, epoxy resin, and low reflectivity rhodium have been tried and tested on metallic archwires (7),(8). Archwires coated with low reflectivity rhodium or multi-layered coating of inner silver and platinum and an outer polymer were rougher than the non coated wires (7).
Frictional resistance is encountered whenever sliding occurs between the bracket slot and the archwire during aligning, levelling or space closure (9). The applied orthodontic force is dissipated by the friction altering the amount of orthodontic force received by the individual tooth, making it important for the clinician to understand the frictional properties of bracket and archwire material (10),(11),(12).
The coating processes of aesthetic archwires alter the surface morphology and increases the surface roughness of the wires affecting the frictional resistance generated between the archwire and bracket during sliding (13),(14). Teflon coated aesthetic archwires reduced the frictional resistance considerably but failed to demonstrate an equivocal correlation between the surface roughness and frictional forces (15). Loss of aesthetic coating, increased surface roughness and reduced unloading force were noted in retrieved coated archwires after clinical use (16).
Due to this, contradictory nature of evidence available in the literature it becomes important to evaluate the frictional resistance of different types of aesthetic archwires available in the market (7),(8),(9),(10),(11),(12),(13),(14),(15),(16). The studies in the literature evaluating the frictional properties of coated superplastic NiTi archwires are limited to the rectangular archwires with only very few studies evaluating the round wires (15),(16),(17),(18),(19). The frictional resistance generated during sliding of epoxy coated round NiTi wires along composite and ceramic brackets had not evaluated so far.
Hence, the present study was designed to evaluate and compare the frictional resistance of an epoxy coated and non coated 0.016*" superelastic NiTi archwire in stainless steel, composite and ceramic orthodontic brackets.
The in-vitro experimental study was conducted in the Department of Orthodontics, SRM Dental College, Ramapuram Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India in the months of January to February 2020. The study design was approved by the Institutional Review Board with an IRB Number of SRMDC/IRB/2019/MDS/No.102.
Sample size calculation: The sample size was calculated using G power software and for a power of 80% and p-value of 0.05, the calculated sample size was 60 with 10 in each group (16).
Study Procedure
Thirty epoxy coated aesthetic 0.016*" upper superelastic NiTi wires (G4™ Nickel Titanium, 0.016*, Upper, Trueform™ I, Tooth-coloured) and thirty conventional 0.016*" upper superelastic NiTi wires (G4™ Nickel Titanium, 0.016*, Upper, Trueform™) from G&H® orthodontics were used in the study. Twenty stainless steel (Gemini® 3M unitek, Monrovia, California), twenty composite (FLI® RMO, Denver, Colo.), and 20 gemini clear ceramic (Gemini clear ® 3M unitek, Monrovia, California) 0.022×0.028" slot Roth prescription maxillary first premolar brackets were used in the study.
The brackets and archwires were divided into six groups of 10 bracket and 10 archwire combination each (Table/Fig 1).
Group A, C and E comprised of composite, ceramic and stainless steel brackets respectively with 0.016*” non coated superelastic NiTi. Group B, D, and F comprised of stainless steel, ceramic and composite brackets respectively with coated super elastic NiTi archwires. A total of 60 samples were tested and each bracket archwire combination was tested only once with each wire specimen drawn through each bracket only once to eliminate the influence of wear (17).
Sixty rectangular acrylic sheets of six different colours of 10 each with a 2×2 inch dimension was elected. The colour coded plates were segregated into six groups (Group A, B, C, D, E and F).
Vertical and horizontal reference lines perpendicular to the borders of the acrylic sheets and to each were other were drawn. The allotted brackets were secured to the acrylic plates belonging to different groups with industrial adhesive at the intersection of the reference lines. The buccal segments of the corresponding archwire to each group were cut and fitted to the bracket slot and ligated passively to the tie wings with 0.01” stainless steel ligatures (Table/Fig 2).
An Instron testing machine with a 10 N tension load cell, calibrated, that allowed the sliding of a bracket along the orthodontic wire was used in the study. The frictional forces generated were measured at room temperature in dry conditions. The acrylic sheets with the bracket and wire were attached to the crosshead of the testing machine (Table/Fig 3). The archwire was drawn through the bracket under tension to a distance of 1.25 mm with a constant crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute (18). The recorded frictional resistance values that were obtained in Newton were converted to grams.
Statistical Analysis
The obtained values were analysed using One way ANOVA and followed by Post Hoc Tukey’s test HSD for multiple comparison using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) statistics tool version 26.0. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered as the level of statistical significance.
The descriptive statistics for the frictional resistance between the archwire and bracket samples belonging to the six experimental group (Group A, B, C, D, E and F) is presented in the (Table/Fig 4).
The mean frictional resistance of the Group E samples with stainless steel bracket and non coated superelastic NiTi archwire was the least among the six experimental groups evaluated with a value of 67.7±2.80 gms. The group D samples with ceramic brackets and coated archwire reported the highest mean frictional resistance of 136.90±3.79 gms which was approximately twice that of the stainless steel bracket and non coated archwire group and significantly different from other groups (p-value of <0.01).
One way ANOVA revealed that the difference among the mean frictional resistance of the six groups was statistically significant with a p-value <0.01 (Table/Fig 5).
The results of the multiple comparisons indicate that the bracket archwire combination of non coated wire in each bracket had lesser frictional resistance than the coated archwire in their respective counterparts. Ranking frictional resistance from least to highest frictional resistance is stainless steel brackets in non coated wire, composite brackets with non coated wire, ceramic bracket with non coated wire, stainless steel brackets with a coated archwire, composite bracket with coated wire, and ceramic bracket with coated wire.
Post Hoc Tukey’s test HSD revealed that there was no significant difference between the frictional resistance generated by non coated wire in the stainless steel bracket and composite bracket (Table/Fig 6). The frictional resistance generated by the non coated archwires in stainless steel brackets (group E samples) was significantly lower than that of other groups with a p-value of <0.01 except group A samples comprising composite brackets and non coated archwire which reported a mean value of 70.87±5.79 gms. The frictional resistance generated by coated wires in stainless steel brackets (group B samples) with a value of 92.53±8.69 gms was not significantly different from the forces generated by the non coated wire in ceramic brackets (89.59±2.89 gms).
In the current study, the epoxy coated archwires demonstrated significantly more frictional resistance than the non coated wires in all the three bracket materials. Stainless steel brackets produced significantly lesser friction and ceramic brackets produced the maximum friction with both coated and non coated archwires.
When an non coated arch wire was used the frictional resistance generated was similar in stainless steel bracket and composite bracket. The forces generated by non coated wires in ceramic brackets were similar to the friction generated by the coated wires in stainless steel brackets. Other groups showed highly significant differences in the frictional resistance generated between the bracket and archwire during sliding.
The fact that stainless steel brackets producing lesser friction than composite and ceramic brackets may be due to the polished surface and lower surface roughness of the stainless steel (19),(20),(21). Researches evaluating the frictional properties of ceramic brackets have found that ceramic brackets have greater resistance than stainless steel brackets and composite brackets with polycrystalline ceramic brackets producing more friction than the monocrystalline brackets (22),(23),(24),(25),(26),(27),(28).
Studies evaluating the effect of aesthetic coating on frictional resistance generated by archwires mostly have evaluated the rectangular archwires and only few studies have evaluated the aligning archwires but, none of them have evaluated the effect of epoxy coating in round NiTi wires in three different type of bracket material (20),(21),(22),(23),(24),(25),(26), (29),(30),(31),(32).
A study conducted by Farronato G et al., evaluating the frictional resistance generated by round and rectangular archwires in self-ligating brackets showed that teflon coating reduced the frictional resistance generated by the orthodontic archwires (29).
Al-groosh D et al., compared the static frictional resistance of fiber-reinforced polymer composite archwire with teflon coated, epoxy coated and a conventional NiTi archwires in ceramic brackets and concluded that composite wires showed higher friction value when used with ceramic brackets compared to other coated and non coated archwires. Contrary to the findings of the previous study teflon coated archwires demonstrated more frictional resistance than epoxy coated wires and non coated wires (30).
In experimental research evaluating polycrystalline ceramic brackets with and without metal slot and monocrystalline brackets with teflon coated, epoxy coated, and rhodium coated stainless steel wires epoxy coated wires produced more friction than teflon coated archwires (31).
Studies have shown that the surface roughness in as received epoxy coated wires are higher compared to other aesthetic arch wires and it may due to the difference in the coating methods. The epoxy coating of the G and H archwire evaluated in the study is carried out by electrostatic coating where atomized liquid epoxy particles are air sprayed over the archwires wire resulting in 0.002? thick epoxy covering around the wire. Aesthetic wires coated by embedding methods or micro layering process have been reported to provide durable coating which accounts for its lowered surface roughness (31),(32).
The frictional forces generated by the archwires are not exclusively dependent on the surface coating and the surface roughness but also on the cross-section, inner core dimension and elastic modulus of wires and this could be the probable explanation for the contradictory finding observed in the previous studies (33),(34).
In the current study, it was observed, that, the epoxy coated 0.016* NiTi wires generated significantly less friction in composite brackets compared to ceramic brackets and based on this finding composite brackets could be a choice of aesthetic brackets along with epoxy coated NiTi archwires.
Limitation(s)
The limitation of the study evaluating the frictional resistance in experimental set-up, is that, the friction magnitude recorded is substantially different type of friction generated during orthodontic tooth movement. The difference is, due the fact that the values are measured in dry conditions and the lubricant effect of saliva which is major influencing factor is missing.
Epoxy coated of the 0.016* superelastic NiTi archwires significantly increased the friction during sliding in all the three types of brackets. The coated wires generated less friction in composite brackets compared to ceramic brackets. The friction may reduce the aligning efficacy of the archwire when used along with aesthetic brackets and increase the treatment period. Further clinical trials are recommended to evaluate the aligning efficacy of these archwires in aesthetic brackets.
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/55490.16414
Date of Submission: Feb 06, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Feb 25, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Apr 05, 2022
Date of Publishing: May 01, 2022
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Feb 27, 2022
• Manual Googling: Apr 04, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Apr 11, 2022 (13%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com