Comparison of Galvanic Currents Generated Between Different Combinations of Orthodontic Brackets and Archwires Using Potentiostat: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Background: Technological advances in wire selection and bracket design have led to improved treatment efficiency and allowed longer time intervals between appliance adjustments. The wires remain in the mouth for a longer duration and are subjected to electrochemical reactions, mechanical forces of mastication and generalized wear. These cause different types of corrosion. This study was done to compare the galvanic currents generated between different combinations of brackets and archwires commonly used in orthodontic practices.

Materials and methods: The materials used for the study included different commercially available orthodontic archwires and brackets. The galvanic current generated by individual materials and different combinations of these materials was tested and compared. The orthodontic archwires used were 0.019″ × 0.025″ heat-activated nickel-titanium (3M Unitek), 0.019″ × 0.025″ beta-titanium (3M Unitek) and 0.019″ × 0.025″ stainless steel (3M Unitek). The orthodontic brackets used were 0.022″ MBT laser-cut (Victory Series, 3M Unitek) and metal-injection molded (Leone Company) maxillary central incisor brackets respectively. The ligature wire used for ligation was 0.009″ stainless steel ligature (HP Company). The galvanic current for individual archwires, brackets, and the different bracket-archwire-ligature combinations was measured by using a Potentiostat machine. The data were generated using the Linear Sweep Voltammetry and OriginPro 8.5 Graphing and Data Analysis Softwares. The study was conducted in two phases. Phase I comprised of five groups for open circuit potential (OCP) and galvanic current (I), whereas Phase II comprised of six groups for galvanic current alone.

Results: Mean, standard deviation and range were computed for the OCP and galvanic current (I) values obtained. Results were subjected to statistical analysis through ANOVA. In Phase I, higher mean OCP was recorded in stainless steel archwire, followed by beta-titanium archwire, heat-activated nickel titanium archwire, laser-cut bracket and metal-injection molded bracket, respectively. The difference in mean OCP recorded among the groups was found to be statistically significant in aerated phosphate buffered saline solution. The galvanic current (I) for metal-injection molded stainless steel brackets showed significantly higher values than all the other materials. Phase II results suggested that, in the couples formed by the archwire-bracket-ligature combinations, the bracket had more important contribution to the total galvanic current generated, since there were significant differences between galvanic current among the 2 brackets tested but not among the 3 wires. The galvanic current of the metal-injection molded bracket was significantly higher than that of laser-cut bracket. Highest mean current (I) was recorded in metal-injection molded bracket when used with heat-activated nickel titanium archwire while lowest mean current (I) was recorded in laser-cut bracket when used with beta-titanium archwire.

Conclusion: The present study concluded that the bracket emerged to be the most important factor in determining the galvanic current (I). Higher mean current (I) was recorded in metal-injection molded bracket compared to laser-cut bracket. Among the three archwires, higher mean current (I) was recorded in heat-activated nickel-titanium, followed by stainless-steel and beta-titanium respectively. When coupled together; highest mean current (I) was recorded in metal-injection molded bracket when used with heat-activated nickel titanium archwire while lowest mean current (I) was recorded in laser-cut bracket when used with beta-titanium archwire.

Keywords: Aerated phosphate buffered saline solution; beta-titanium archwire; galvanic current (I); heat-activated nickel-titanium archwire; laser-cut bracket; linear sweep voltammetry; metal-injection molded bracket; open circuit potential (OCP); potentiostat; stainless steel archwire.

Graph 1

Open circuit potential for individual materials.

Graph 2

Galvanic current (I) for individual materials.

Graph 3

Galvanic current (I) for combinations of materials.