Next Article in Journal
Hyaluronic Acid Hydrogel Containing Resveratrol-Loaded Chitosan Nanoparticles as an Adjuvant in Atopic Dermatitis Treatment
Next Article in Special Issue
Decellularized Scaffolds of Nopal (Opuntia Ficus-indica) for Bioengineering in Regenerative Dentistry
Previous Article in Journal
Thermal Behavior of Graphene Oxide Deposited on 3D-Printed Polylactic Acid for Photothermal Therapy: An Experimental–Numerical Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Positive Effects of UV-Photofunctionalization of Titanium Oxide Surfaces on the Survival and Differentiation of Osteogenic Precursor Cells—An In Vitro Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JFB
Volume 14
Issue 2
10.3390/jfb14020081
jfb-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of the Corrosion Resistance of Different Types of Orthodontic Fixed Retention Appliances: A Preliminary Laboratory Study

by
Busra Kumrular
1,
Orhan Cicek
1,*,
İlker Emin Dağ
2,
Baris Avar
2 and
Hande Erener
3
1
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak 67100, Turkey
2
Department of Metallurgical and Materials Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak 67100, Turkey
3
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tekirdag Namık Kemal University, Tekirdağ 59030, Turkey
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14(2), 81; https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14020081
Submission received: 15 December 2022 / Revised: 28 January 2023 / Accepted: 29 January 2023 / Published: 31 January 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Biomaterials and Biotechnology: Applications in Dental Medicine)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
(i) Objective: The present study aimed to compare the electrochemical corrosion resistance of six different types of fixed lingual retainer wires used as fixed retention appliances in an in vitro study. (ii) Methods: In the study, two different Ringer solutions, with pH 7 and pH 3.5, were used. Six groups were formed with five retainer wires in each group. In addition, 3-braided stainless steel, 6-braided stainless steel, Titanium Grade 1, Titanium Grade 5, Gold, and Dead Soft retainer wires were used. The corrosion current density (icorr), corrosion rate (CR), and polarization resistance (Rp) were determined from the Tafel polarization curves. (iii) Results: The corrosion current density of the Gold retainer group was statistically higher than the other retainer groups in both solutions (p < 0.05). The corrosion rate of the Dead Soft retainer group was statistically higher than the other retainer groups in both solutions (p < 0.05). The polarization resistance of the Titanium Grade 5 retainer group was statistically higher than the other retainer groups in both solutions (p < 0.05). As a result of Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) images, pitting corrosion was not observed in the Titanium Grade 1, Titanium Grade 5 and Gold retainer groups, while pitting corrosion was observed in the other groups. (iv) Conclusion: From a corrosion perspective, although the study needs to be evaluated in vivo, the Titanium Grade 5 retainer group included is in this in vitro study may be more suitable for clinical use due to its high electrochemical corrosion resistance and the lack of pitting corrosion observed in the SEM images.

1. Introduction

In orthodontic treatment, relapse is defined as the return of the teeth to their initial positions or their positions failure result of the treatment [1]. Riedel defined retention as: “Retaining the teeth in an ideal aesthetic and functional position” [2]. Retention, in orthodontics, is defined as the treatment that allows teeth to stay in their proper positions after the treatment is finished and creates the last stage of orthodontic treatment [3]. The appliances used in retention are divided into two groups: removable and fixed. Fixed retention appliances are often preferred because they do not require the patient’s cooperation. In addition, they are aesthetic due to their adhesion to the lingual surfaces of the tooth and provide better retention than removable retention appliances [4]. Although there are different approaches applied to retention after orthodontic treatment, most orthodontists recommend lifetime retention [5,6].
Stainless steel, nickel-titanium, cobalt-chromium, beta-titanium, and multi-stranded wire metal alloys are frequently used in orthodontic treatment [7].
Corrosion is an electrochemical process that leads to the breakdown of metal [8]. The corrosion rate is defined as the amount of metal dissolved per unit of time and provides a numerical assessment of the corrosion resistance of materials [9].
Whilst the corrosion rate is determined by the mass reduction method in chemical events, it is evaluated by the linear polarization method, Tafel polarization method, harmonic analysis, dynamic electrochemical impedance, and electrochemical impedance in electrochemical events [9]. Corrosion can be assessed by obtaining the polarization curves in solution with the electrochemical measurements [9]. While the electrode potential is changed within a determined range in the potentiodynamic method, the current density corresponding to this potential is measured. It not only gives information about the corrosion rate, but also about the corrosion mechanism [9].
Electrochemical corrosion is possible in the oral environment because saliva is a weak electrolyte [10,11]. The electrochemical properties of saliva depend on the concentrations of its ingredients, pH, surface tension, and buffering capacity. Hence, the corrosion process can be controlled by these variables [12].
The corrosion resistance of orthodontic alloys is affected by the oral environment, with various variables, such as temperature, amount and quality of saliva, plaque, pH, proteins, and physical-chemical properties of food [13,14]. As the wires used in orthodontic treatment stay in the mouth for a long time, they should be corrosion resistant, prevent ion release, and not cause allergic reactions. In other words, orthodontic wires should be biologically compatible with oral tissues. The corrosion of orthodontic wires not only reduces the mechanical properties of the wire, but also increases the metal ion release in the wire [15,16]. It is stated that nickel, chromium, and iron, which can be released by the corrosion of orthodontic wires, are considerably harmful elements [17,18,19].
It has been reported that systemic disease may occur due to titanium [20]. Titanium may be the cause of ‘yellow nail syndrome’. In 30 patients with yellow nail syndrome, energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (EDXRF) was used to measure the titanium content. In the patients’ nails, the titanium content was found to be high, and the cause of yellow nail syndrome was determined to be titanium. Yellow nail syndrome is characterized by nail changes, bronchial obstruction and lymphedema. Sinusitis, associated with postnasal drip and cough, were the most common symptoms in patients with yellow nail syndrome [21]. Due to corrosion and wear, the particles and ions of titanium and titanium alloy components can accumulate in the surrounding tissues and inflammatory reactions can occur [20].
In the literature, there are many studies on the electrochemical corrosion of archwires used in orthodontic treatment [22,23,24]. However, there are not enough studies on the electrochemical corrosion of the retainer wires used as fixed appliances in retentions that are intended to remain in the mouth longer than the applied orthodontic treatment period, or even for a lifetime.
The present study is aimed to compare and evaluate the electrochemical corrosion resistance of six different types of fixed lingual retainer wires used as fixed retention appliances, in vitro, in pH 7 and pH 3.5 Ringer solutions, by considering the current densities, corrosion rates, and polarization resistances.

2. Materials and Methods

The ethics committee approval was obtained from the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University (Decision no: 2022/06-23/03/2022).
The sample size calculation was performed in the G*Power 3.1.9.7 program. The effect size was calculated by using the means and standard deviations of the groups. The a error probability was set to 0.05. The power of the study (1-α error prob) was set to 0.95. According to these data, the actual power of the study was calculated to be 95% and the total sample size should have been 12. In the study, 60 retainer wires sample, 5 in each group, were used. The groups in this study were formed by selecting six different types of retainer wires from two different brands. Each group consisted of five samples, given below:
 
Group 1: 0.50 mm diameter 3-braided stainless-steel retainer (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany)
 
Group 2: 0.45 mm diameter 6-braided stainless-steel retainer (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany)
 
Group 3: 0.50 mm diameter three braided Titanium Grade 1 retainer (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany)
 
Group 4: 0.50 mm diameter three braided Titanium Grade 5 retainer (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany)
 
Group 5: 0.50 mm diameter three braided Gold retainer (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany)
 
Group 6: 0.50 mm diameter Dead Soft Respond Wire retainer (Ormco, CA, USA)
The equivalent weights and densities according to the ratios of the elements in the wires are given in Table 1 [25,26,27,28]. The Dentarum shared information about the chemical contents of the samples used in the study and the Ormco did not indicate it due to trade secrets. Hence, the chemical content of the Dead Soft retainer wire was determined using Energy Dispersive X-ray Analysis (EDX) [29] (Figure 1). The carbon content on the EDX analysis of Group 6 was ignored in the calculations; as no stainless steel includes the EDX method, one cannot truly analyze the amount of light elements it contains [30].
The surface area of the tested materials was adjusted to 0.239 cm2. The wires were coated with nail polish (Flormar, Italy), with the exception of the corroding portion, to prepare the samples for analysis. Each wire was ultrasonically cleaned with ethanol for 5 min before testing.
The Ringer’s solution consisted of 9 g/L Sodium Chloride (NaCl), 0.42 g/L Potassium Chloride (KCl), and 0.25 g/L Calcium Chloride (CaCl2). [31,32,33]. In order to adjust the pH of the solutions, 0.1 M Hydrogen Chloride (HCl) [34] and 0.1 M Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH) [35] were used to obtain pH 3.5 and pH 7 electrolytes. The corrosion cell was designed using the Solidworks 2014 computer aided design (CAD) program and was 3D printed from a 1.75 mm diameter thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) filament. To prevent the formation of noise during the electrochemical testing, and to acquire reliable findings for every test, all of the experimental units were compactly aligned. As it can be seen in Figure 2, the potentiodynamic polarization tests were conducted at 37 ± 1 °C in the Ringer’s solution using a 3-electrode corrosion cell. Ag/AgCl was used as the reference electrode, platinum wire was conducted as the counter electrode and the retainer wire was applied for the working electrode.
After the test mechanism was set up, the temperature gradually increased until it reached 37 ± 1 °C. When the temperature became 37 ± 1 °C, the lingual retainer (working electrode) was kept in the solution for 1 h to provide an open circuit potential. The potentiodynamic polarization tests were conducted with a scan rate of 1 mV/s, from −1000 mV to +1000 mV, using the electrochemical workstation (Gamry Interface 1000E Potentiostat; Gamry Instruments Inc. 72 Warminster, PA, USA).
The corrosion rate was determined using Tafel curves. The first thing to analyze using the Tafel curves is to determine the corrosion rate, which involves finding the corrosion current density; this can be calculated by drawing tangents to the anodic and cathodic tafel curves, then intersecting them, as shown in Figure 3 [36].
After finding the corrosion current density, The formula in the ASTM G 59 97 standard [36], given in (1), was applied to determine the corrosion rate of the retainer wires.
C R = K 1 × i c o r r × EW ρ
Here, in Formula (1), icorr indicates the corrosion current density (µA/cm2), EW is the equivalent weight of the material, K1 stands for the constant coefficient of 3.27 × 10−3 (mm·g/A·cm·year), ρ denotes the density (g/cm3), and CR defines the corrosion rate in (mm/year).
The polarization resistance (Rp) (Ωcm2) was obtained using the Stern-Geary equation, shown in (2) [9,16,37].
i c o r r = 1 2303 R p ( b a × b c b a + b c )
Here, for the above formula, icorr, Rp indicates the corrosion current density (A/cm2) and polarization resistance (ohms.cm2), while ba, bc denotes the anodic, cathodic Tafel slopes (volts/decade).
The samples’ surface morphology was evaluated through Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) analysis.
The average, standard deviation, median, lowest, highest, frequency and ratio values were used in the descriptive statistics of the data. Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests were performed to determine whether the intra-group data were distributed. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to see if there is a difference between the groups. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to find out which groups were different. In addition, the Mann-Whitney U test was used in the group comparison between the solutions. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS (version 28.0; SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).

3. Results

The corrosion current density (icorr (µA/cm2)) is shown in Table 2; the corrosion rate (mm/year) and the polarization resistance (Rp (Ωcm2)) test results are indicated in Table 3 and Table 4, respectively. The potentiodynamic polarization curves for all of the retainers and electrolytes are displayed in Figure 4.

3.1. Polarization Test Results

The corrosion of metallic wires is an electrochemical phenomenon in which two reactions occur simultaneously in a conductive solution. The oral cavity is exposed to different pH by drinking and eating. The corrosion rate and type are affected by the kind of electrolyte, metal, production technique, test settings, and varying pH [8]. Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 show that when the corrosion behavior of stainless steel (group 1, 2 and 6) retainer wires is evaluated, the corrosion rate increases as the pH drops. Among the stainless steel groups, the change in pH had the least effect on the 3-braided retainers. The corrosion current density for these wires, at 3.5 and 7 pH, had average values of 1.04 and 1.05 μA/cm2, respectively, as shown in Table 2. However, in the 6-braided Dentaurum and Deadsoft Respond wire retainers, the low pH increased the corrosion current density by approximately 144% and 79%. Diverse researchers have also investigated how pH impacts the electrochemical corrosion behavior of stainless steel orthodontic wires. Močnik et al. studied how the pH value of the solution effects the corrosion of NiTi and 304 stainless steel dental archwires. While the initial artificial saliva had a pH of 6.5, lactic acid was added to achieve 2.5 and 3.9 pH, and the corrosion current density values of NiTi and 304 steel were also compared. As the pH ratio decreased for the NiTi wires, the corrosion current density increased from 0.17 µA/cm2 to 0.83 µA/cm2. Similarly, the corrosion current density in stainless steel increased from 0.15 A/cm2 to 0.35 A/cm2 as the pH dropped [38]. In our study, the 6-braided Dentaurum SS had the highest corrosion resistance among the stainless steel retainers. The manufacturing differences between Deadsoft and Dentaurum, or the variation and inhomogeneities of the normalization annealing after production, may be responsible for the high corrosion resistance of the 6-braided wires, whose corrosion current densities are 0.27 and 0.66 μA/cm2 in 7 and 3.5 pH, respectively. Makiewicz et al. conducted the potentiodynamic polarization test on 304 stainless steel orthodontic archwires made by the 3M (USA) and Rocky Mountain Orthodontic [RMO] (USA) companies under the same test conditions and solutions. The corrosion current density for the RMO was 0.27 μA/cm2, whereas it was 0.49 μA/cm2 for the 3M [39]. The differences in the corrosion current density, corrosion rate, and polarization resistance between the two Dentaurum wires can be explained by the stresses caused by twisting while manufacturing, or by the localized corrosion, which affects the continuity of the passive Cr2O3 film formed on the surface of stainless steels. Furthermore, the difference in the heat treatments during and after wire production could have contributed to this. According to Zhang et al. different stress effects influence the corrosion rate and mechanism of stainless steel archwires [40]. Pitting corrosion may occur as a result of irregularities caused by production, the presence of salt containing chlorine ions, such as NaCl, KCl, or localized corrosion [41]. As can be seen in Figure 5, the pitting corrosion impacted all of the stainless steel groups. However, severe corrosion caused direct material loss in the 3.5 pH solution in the 3-braided Dentaurum wire. The main reason for the pitting corrosion being so effective is the aggressive ions in the Ringer’s solution. Titanium has excellent corrosion resistance due to the passive protective TiO2 film formed on the surface of titanium and its alloys [42]. The presence of corrosive ions, such as Cl− in the electrolyte, may cause the corrosion of titanium and its alloys, as in stainless steel. As with stainless steel, the corrosion of titanium grade 1 and 5 accelerated as the pH decreased. The corrosion current density of the Ti-6Al-4V alloy was found to be 0.12 and 0.13 μA/cm2, while titanium grade 1 had 0.22 and 0.25 μA/cm2. Similarly, Calderón et al. reported the corrosion current density of Ti-6Al-4V to be 0.044 µA/cm2 and 0.07 µA/cm2 for pure Ti. For the phosphate buffered solution, the Ti-6Al-4V alloy showed higher corrosion resistance than the pure titanium [43]. The gold retainer had the highest corrosion current density in our experiments. Although pure gold exhibits very noble behavior and does not corrode, the high corrosion current density may be due to a microgalvanic effect that may occur between Cu, Ag, Pt elements and gold. In addition, the continuity of the gold layer may be absent. In addition, irregularities that may occur while bending the wires, depending on the production method, may cause local corrosion. High stresses that may occur in the wires may also have caused the galvanic effect [44,45].

3.2. Statistical Analysis Results

In the pH 7 Ringer’s solution, the current density of the Gold retainer group was found to be significantly higher than the other groups (p < 0.05). The current density of the 3-braided SS and Dead Soft retainer groups were found to be statistically higher than the 6-braided SS, Titanium Grade 1, and Titanium Grade 5 retainer groups (p < 0.05). The corrosion rate of the Dead Soft and the 3-braided SS retainer groups were found to be significantly higher than the 6-braided SS, Titanium Grade 1, Titanium Grade 5, and Gold retainer groups (p < 0.05). The corrosion rate of the Gold retainer group was found to be statistically higher than the 6-braided SS, Titanium Grade 1, and Titanium Grade 5 retainer groups (p < 0.05). The polarization resistance of the Titanium Grade 5 retainer group was found to be significantly higher than the other retainer groups (p < 0.05). The polarization resistance of the Titanium Grade 1 retainer group was found to be statistically higher than the 3-braided SS, 6-braided SS, Gold, and Dead Soft retainer groups (p < 0.05). The polarization resistance of the 6-braided SS retainer was found to be significantly higher than the 3-braided SS, Gold, and Dead Soft retainer groups (p < 0.05). The polarization resistance of the 3-braided SS and Dead Soft retainer groups were found to be statistically higher than that of the Gold retainer group (p < 0.05).
In the pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution, the current density of the Gold retainer group was found to be significantly higher than the other retainer groups (p < 0.05). The current density of the Dead Soft retainer group was found to be statistically higher than the 6-braided SS, Titanium Grade 1, and Titanium Grade 5 retainer groups (p < 0.05). The current density of the 3-braided SS and 6-braided SS retainer groups were found to be significantly higher than the Titanium Grade 1 and Titanium Grade 5 retainer groups (p < 0.05). The current density of the Titanium Grade 1 retainer group was found to be statistically higher than the Titanium Grade 5 retainer group (p < 0.05). The corrosion rate of the Dead Soft retainer was found to be significantly higher than the other retainer groups (p < 0.05). The corrosion rate of the 3-braided SS retainer, Gold and 6-braided SS retainer groups were found to be statistically higher than Titanium Grade 1 and Titanium Grade 5 retainer groups (p < 0.05). The polarization resistance of the Titanium Grade 5 retainer group was found to be significantly higher than the other retainer groups (p < 0.05). The polarization resistance of the Titanium Grade 1 and the 6-braided SS retainer groups were found to be statistically higher than the 3-braided SS, Gold, and Dead Soft retainer groups (p < 0.05). The polarization resistance of the Dead Soft retainer group was found to be significantly higher than the 3-braided SS and Gold retainer groups (p < 0.05).
In the results of the comparison between the Ringer’s solutions, there was no statistical difference between the pH 7 Ringer solution and pH 3.5 Ringer solution in terms of the current density, corrosion rate, and polarization resistance of the 3-braided SS, Titanium Grade 1, and Gold retainer groups (p > 0.05). The current density and corrosion rate of the 6-braided SS and Dead Soft retainer groups were found to be significantly higher in the pH 3.5 Ringer solution than in the pH 7 Ringer solution (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference between the pH 7 and pH 3.5 Ringer’s solutions in terms of their polarization resistance (p > 0.05). While there was no statistical difference between the pH 7 Ringer solution and the pH 3.5 Ringer solution in terms of current density and corrosion rate in the Titanium Grade 5 group, the polarization resistance was found to be statistically significantly higher in the pH 7 Ringer solution than in the pH 3.5 Ringer solution (p < 0.05).

3.3. Results of Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) Studies on Samples

After the electrochemical corrosion tests were performed, a sample was taken from each group, and images were obtained in a scanning electron microscope at 200× magnification (Figure 5, Figure 6). Pitting corrosion was observed on the 3-braided SS, 6-braided SS, and Dead Soft retainer groups in both solutions (Figure 5). No physical corrosion damage was observed on the Titanium Grade 1, Titanium Grade 5, and Gold retainer groups in both solutions (Figure 6).

4. Discussion

In previous studies, a favorable environment for the deterioration of dental material has been reported in the oral cavity because of temperature changes, changing pH, tooth brushing, chewing, dental plaque, ingested foods, moisture, and the presence of microorganisms [44,46,47,48,49]. In addition, Castro et al. reported that corrosion is an electrochemical process that leads to metal degradation [8]. Huang and Lin et al. have stated that the stainless steel used in orthodontic treatment increased its resistance to corrosion by forming a Cr2O3/Fe2O3 layer, and nickel-titanium by forming a TiO2 layer. This layer is defined as the passive oxide layer [14,50].
Pakshir et al. stated that the current density of stainless steel archwires (G&H Wire Company, Greenwood, India) was higher than nickel-titanium archwires (Orthotechnology Co. Ltd., Tampa, Florida). It was stated that the current density is directly proportional to the corrosion rate; a great current density shows lower resistance against corrosion, and the corrosion rate of nickel-titanium archwire was found to be lower than stainless steel [32]. Barcelos et al. stated that the current density and corrosion rate of stainless steel (Morelli Orthodontiaa, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) archwires were lower than nickel-titanium (Morelli Orthodontiaa, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) archwires. It has also been stated that stainless steel wire is less susceptible to corrosion, and that the current density and corrosion rate increase as the pH decreases [34]. Malkiewicz et al. stated that the lowest current density was in nickel-titanium archwires (RMO, USA: 3M, USA), while the highest current density was in stainless steel archwires (RMO, USA: 3M, USA). The current density of stainless steel archwires was found to be statistically higher than titanium-molybdenum and nickel-titanium archwires. The current density of titanium-molybdenum archwires was found to be statistically higher than nickel-titanium archwires [39].
In the present study, it was found that the 3-braided SS and Dead Soft retainer groups in the pH 7 Ringer solution had a statistically higher current density and higher corrosion rate than the Titanium Grade 1, Titanium Grade 5, and 6-braided SS retainer groups. It was found that the 3-braided SS, 6-braided SS and Dead Soft retainer groups in the Ringer’s solution with pH 3.5 had a significantly higher current density and higher corrosion rate than the Titanium Grade 1 and Titanium Grade 5 groups. The current density of the Titanium Grade 1 retainer group was found to be statistically higher than the Titanium Grade 5 retainer group in the Ringer’s solution with a pH of 3.5. This can be explained by the fact that the Titanium Grade 5 group consists of Ti-6Al-4V. Due to the aluminum and vanadium in Ti-6Al-4V, it is more resistant to corrosion than other types of titanium [51]. The current density of the Gold retainer group was significantly higher than the other retainer groups in both solutions. However, the corrosion rate of the Gold retainer group was significantly higher than the Titanium Grade 1 and Titanium Grade 5 retainer groups in both solutions. The equivalent weight and density of the gold affected the corrosion rate. The deterioration rate may change with the change in the material content. Noble metals, such as gold and platinum, are normally stable [52]. However, in the present study, it was observed that the Gold retainer group was corroded, and it is thought that the elements in the Gold retainer group may cause this situation by forming galvanic couples [53]. The present study’s demonstration of the higher corrosion resistance of titanium-containing wires was promoted by the study of Pakshir et al. [32] and Malkiewicz et al. [39]. It could not be promoted by the study of Barcelos et al. [34]. The data obtained from the present study and the studies in the literature show that orthodontic wires are corroded. Due to the methodological differences, it is not possible to directly compare the studies; however, this condition was stated in the study of Malkiewicz et al. [39].
In the study conducted by Huang with artificial saliva with pH 2.5, 3.5, 5.0, and 6.25, it was stated that the current density increased as the pH decreased [54]. Wajahat et al. stated in the study on nickel titanium wires (Ortho Organizer, USA) that the corrosion rate increased as the pH decreased; hence, the corrosive effect of acidic solutions is higher [29].
In the present study, the current density and corrosion rate of the 3-braided SS, Titanium Grade 1, Titanium Grade 5, and Gold retainer groups did not show any significant difference in the Ringer solution with pH 3.5 and pH 7. The current density and corrosion rate of the 6-braided SS and Dead Soft retainer groups were found to be statistically significantly higher in the Ringer solution with pH 3.5 than in the Ringer solution with pH 7. The present study was promoted by the studies of Huang [54] and Wajahat et al. [29].
Ziebowicz et al. stated that the polarization resistance of the NiTi archwire (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA) was higher than that of the CuNiTi archwire (Ormco Corporation, Brea, CA, USA) [16]. Lin et al. stated, in their study of acidic artificial saliva using linear polarization curve, that the Rp values were between 103–104 Ω.cm2, and there was a statistical difference between the polarization resistance of the different stainless steel bracket brands (3M Unitek, Puchheim, Germany: Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany: Ormco, Scafati, Italy: RMO, Denver, Col.: Tomy, Tokyo, Japan). However, there was no statistical difference between the bracket types (Roth type and Standard type) [50].
In the present study, the Rp values of the stainless-steel retainer groups were between 104 and 105 Ω.cm2 for the different pH levels. In both solutions, the polarization resistance of the Titanium Grade 1 and Titanium Grade 5 retainer groups was found to be statistically higher than the other groups. This can be explained by the high corrosion resistance of titanium-containing materials [51]. The polarization resistance of the Titanium Grade 5 group was found to be statistically higher than the Titanium Grade 1 group. This can be explained by the Ti-6Al-4V content of the Titanium Grade 5 group. Due to the aluminum and vanadium in Ti-6Al-4V, it is more resistant to corrosion than other types of titanium [51]. The polarization resistance of the 6-braided SS retainer was found to be significantly higher than the 3-braided SS, Dead Soft, and Gold retainer groups. The least polarization resistance was obtained in the Gold retainer group.
Lee et al. stated, in their study in artificial saliva solution with 0.01%, 0.1%, 0.25%, and 0.5% NaF concentrations using linear polarization curves, that the polarization resistance of nickel-titanium archwires decreased with the increase in the fluorine content, and the resistance against corrosion decreased [55].
In the present study, the polarization resistance of the 3-braided SS, 6-braided SS, Titanium Grade 1, Gold, and Dead Soft retainer groups showed no statistically significant difference between the pH 3.5 and pH 7 Ringer’s solution. The polarization resistance of the Titanium Grade 5 retainer group was found to be statistically higher in the pH 7 Ringer solution than in the pH 3.5. Ringer solution.
Li et al. stated that pitting corrosion occurs in nickel-titanium archwires (Shenzhen Superline Technology Co. Ltd., Guangdong, China) [56]. Kao and Huang stated, in the study in pH 4 artificial saliva solution, that stainless steel and nickel-titanium archwires’ (3M, Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) pitting corrosion was noted. They stated that acidic environments cause the wire to become fragile, and nickel-titanium wires can break under stress [57]. Suarez et al. stated that manufacturing errors are frequent in SS archwires (Ormco Corp., Glendora, CA, USA) and the surface structure is quite distorted after polarization tests. They stated that NiTi, CuNiTi, and TMA (Ormco Corp., Glendora, CA, USA) archwires have high resistance to corrosion with minimal structural damage [58]. Wajahat et al. stated that pitting corrosion occurred on nickel-titanium archwires [29].
In the present study, pitting corrosion occurred on the 3-braided SS, 6-braided SS, and Dead Soft retainer groups, while pitting corrosion did not occur on the Titanium Grade 1, Titanium Grade 5, and Gold retainer groups. While the corrosion resistance of the Gold retainer group was lower than Titanium Grade 1 and Titanium Grade 5, pitting corrosion was not observed on the Gold retainer group in the SEM images.

5. Conclusions

The current density of the Gold retainer group was found to be statistically higher than the other retainer groups in both solutions, indicating that its resistance to corrosion is less than the other groups. The corrosion rate of the Dead Soft retainer group was found to be statistically higher than the other retainer groups in both solutions, indicating that its corrosion resistance was lower than the other groups. The polarization resistance of the Titanium Grade 5 retainer group was found to be statistically higher than the other retainer groups in both solutions, indicating that its corrosion resistance was higher than the other groups. While pitting corrosion was not observed in the SEM images of the Titanium Grade 1, Titanium Grade 5, and Gold retainer groups, pitting corrosion was observed in the 3-braided SS, 6-braided SS, and Dead Soft retainer groups. Due to the retainer wires staying in the mouth for a long time, and as a result of electrochemical corrosion tests and SEM images, the use of titanium-containing retainer wires can be recommended in retention due to their high resistance to corrosion. Considering that the study was performed in vitro using a Ringer’s solution, further studies should be conducted in in vitro and in vivo environments that simulate the oral conditions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, O.C., B.K., B.A. and İ.E.D.; methodology, O.C., B.K., B.A. and H.E.; software, B.K., O.C., B.A. and İ.E.D.; validation, O.C., B.K., B.A., İ.E.D. and H.E.; formal analysis, O.C., B.K., B.A. and İ.E.D.; investigation, B.K. and O.C.; resources, B.K., O.C., B.A., İ.E.D. and H.E.: data curation, B.K. and O.C.; writing—original draft preparation, B.K., O.C., B.A. and İ.E.D. and H.E.; writing—review and editing, B.K., O.C., B.A, İ.E.D. and H.E.; visualization, O.C., B.K. and B.A.; supervision, O.C. and B.A.; project administration, O.C., B.K. and B.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The ethics committee approval was obtained from the Non-Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University (Decision no: 2022/06-23/03/2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All of the data supporting the results of this study are included within the article.

Acknowledgments

This study constitutes a specialty dissertation thesis by Busra KUMRULAR, Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University, Department of Orthodontics, Turkey. We would like to thank the Non- Interventional Clinical Research Ethics Committee of Zonguldak Bulent Ecevit University according to ethical approval for this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship and/or publication of this article. The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

References

  1. Abdulraheem, S.; Schütz-Fransson, U.; Bjerklin, K. Teeth movement 12 years after orthodontic treatment with and without retainer: Relapse or usual changes? Eur. J. Orthod. 2020, 42, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Blake, M.; Bibby, K. Retention and stability: A review of the literature. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1998, 144, 299–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Johnston, C.D.; Littlewood, S.J. Retention in orthodontics. Br. Dent. J. 2015, 218, 119–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zachrisson, B.U. Long-term experience with direct-bonded retainers: Update and clinical advice. J. Clin. Orthod. 2007, 41, 728. [Google Scholar]
  5. Singh, P.; Grammati, S.; Kirschen, R. Orthodontic retention patterns in the United Kingdom. J. Orthod. 2009, 36, 115–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Valiathan, M.; Hughes, E. Results of a survey-based study to identify common retention practices in the United States. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2010, 137, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Kotha, R.S.; Alla, R.K.; Shammas, M.; Ravi, R.K. An overview of orthodontic wires. Trends Biomater. Artif. Organs. 2014, 28, 32–36. [Google Scholar]
  8. Castro, S.M.; Ponces, M.J.; Lopes, J.D.; Vasconcelos, M.; Pollmann, M.C. Orthodontic wires and its corrosion-The specific case of stainless steel and beta-titanium. J. Dent. Sci. 2015, 10, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Gerengi, H. Tafel Polarizasyon (TP), Lineer Polarizasyon (LP), Harmonik Analiz (HA) ve Dinamik Elektrokimyasal İmpedans Spektroskopisi (DEIS) Yöntemleriyle Düşük Karbon Çeliği (AISI 1026), Pirinç-MM55 ve Nikalium-118 Alaşımlarının Yapay Deniz Suyunda Korozyon Davranışları ve Pirinç Alaşımlarına Benzotriazol’ün İnhibitör Etkisinin Araştırılması. Ph.D. Thesis, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Institute of Science, Department of Chemistry, Eskişehir, Turkey, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  10. Mohammed, N.B.; Daily, Z.A.; Alsharbaty, M.H.; Abullais, S.S.; Arora, S.; Lafta, H.A.; Jalil, A.T.; Almulla, A.F.; Ramírez-Coronel, A.A.; Aravindhan, S.; et al. Effect of PMMA sealing treatment on the corrosion behavior of plasma electrolytic oxidized titanium dental implants in fluoride-containing saliva solution. Mater. Res. Express. 2022, 13, 125401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Jamali, R.; Bordbar-Khiabani, A.; Yarmand, B.; Mozafari, M.; Kolahi, A. Effects of co-incorporated ternary elements on biocorrosion stability, antibacterial efficacy, and cytotoxicity of plasma electrolytic oxidized titanium for implant dentistry. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2022, 276, 125436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Akın, E. Examination of Corrosion Effects on Orthodontic Brackets under Simulated Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD)–An In-Vitro Study. PhD Thesis, Yeditepe University Institute of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Turkey, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  13. Rondelli, G.; Vicentini, B. Evaluation by electrochemical tests of the passive film stability of equiatomic Ni-Ti alloy also in presence of stress-induced martensite. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. 2000, 51, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Huang, H.H. Corrosion resistance of stressed NiTi and stainless steel orthodontic wires in acid artificial saliva. J. Biomed. Mater. Res.-Part A 2003, 66, 829–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gürsoy, S.; Acar, A.G.; Şeşen, Ç. Comparison of metal release from new and recycled bracket-archwire combinations. Angle Orthod. 2005, 75, 92–94. [Google Scholar]
  16. Ziębowicz, A.; Walke, W.; Barucha-Kępka, A.; Kiel, M. Corrosion behaviour of metallic biomaterials used as orthodontic wires. J. Achiev. Mater. Manuf. Eng. 2008, 27, 151–154. [Google Scholar]
  17. Krishnan, M.; Seema, S.; Kumar, A.V.; Varthini, N.P.; Sukumaran, K.; Pawar, V.R.; Arora, V. Corrosion resistance of surface modified nickel titanium archwires. Angle Orthod. 2014, 82, 358–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Mikulewicz, M.; Chojnacka, K. Release of metal ions from orthodontic appliances by in vitro studies: A systematic literature review. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2011, 139, 241–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fernández-Miñano, E.; Ortiz, C.; Vicente, A.; Calvo, J.L.; Ortiz, A.J. Metallic ion content and damage to the DNA in oral mucosa cells of children with fixed orthodontic appliances. BioMetals 2011, 24, 935–941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kim, K.T.; Eo, M.Y.; Nguyen, T.T.H.; Kim, S.M. General review of titanium toxicity. Int. J. Implant Dent. 2019, 5, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Berglund, F.; Carlmark, B. Titanium, sinusitis, and the yellow nail syndrome. Biol. Trace Elem. Res. 2011, 143, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Kamiński, J.; Małkiewicz, K.; Rȩbiś, J.; Wierzchoń, T. The effect of glow discharge nitriding on the corrosion resistance of stainless steel orthodontic arches in artificial saliva solution. Arch. Metall. Mater. 2020, 65, 375–384. [Google Scholar]
  23. He, L.; Cui, Y.; Zhang, C. The corrosion resistance, cytotoxicity, and antibacterial properties of lysozyme coatings on orthodontic composite arch wires. RSC Adv. 2020, 10, 18131–18137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Anitha, N.; Kala, P.S.; Jothika, S.; Parveen, A.K.; Kavibharathi, L.; Kaviya, D.; Jewelcy, A.L.; Banu, H.M.; Prabha, J.M.; Belsiya, A.M.; et al. Corrosion resistance of orthodontic wire made of SS 18/8 alloy in artificial saliva in presence of Halls menthol candy investigated by electrochemical studies. Int. J. Corros. Scale Inhib. 2022, 11, 353–363. [Google Scholar]
  25. Nespoli, A.; Passaretti, F.; Szentmiklósi, L.; Maróti, B.; Placidi, E.; Cassetta, M.; Yada, R.Y.; Farrar, D.H.; Tian, K.V. Biomedical NiTi and β-Ti Alloys: From Composition, Microstructure and Thermo-Mechanics to Application. Metals 2022, 25, 406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Tian, K.V.; Festa, G.; Szentmiklósi, L.; Maróti, B.; Arcidiacono, L.; Lagana, G.; Andreani, C.; Licoccia, S.; Senesi, R.; Cozza, P. Compositional studies of functional orthodontic archwires using prompt-gamma activation analysis at a pulsed neutron source. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. 2017, 32, 1420–1427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tian, K.V.; Festa, G.; Basoli, F.; Laganà, G.; Scherillo, A.; Andreani, C.; Bollero, P.; Licoccia, S.; Senesi, R.; Cozza, P. Orthodontic archwire composition and phase analyses by neutron spectroscopy. Dent. Mater. J. 2017, 36, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Tian, K.V.; Passaretti, F.; Nespoli, A.; Placidi, E.; Condò, R.; Andreani, C.; Licoccia, S.; Chass, G.A.; Senesi, R.; Cozza, P. Composition—Nanostructure steered performance predictions in steel wires. Nanomaterials 2019, 9, 1119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wajahat, M.; Moeen, F.; Husain, S.W.; Siddique, S.; Khurshid, Z. Effects of Various Mouthwashes on the Orthodontic Nickel-Titanium Wires: Corrosion Analysis. J. Pak. Dent. Assoc. 2020, 29, 30–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Zhang, Z.; Wu, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zou, X.; Zhao, Y.; Sun, L. Fabrication of silver nanoparticles embedded into polyvinyl alcohol (Ag/PVA) composite nanofibrous films through electrospinning for antibacterial and surface-enhanced Raman scattering (SERS) activities. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2016, 69, 462–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Guo, W.Y.; Sun, J.; Wu, J.S. Electrochemical and XPS studies of corrosion behavior of Ti-23Nb-0.7Ta-2Zr-O alloy in Ringer’s solution. Mater. Chem. Phys. 2009, 113, 816–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pakshir, M.; Bagheri, T.; Kazemi, M.R. In vitro evaluation of the electrochemical behaviour of stainless steel and Ni-Ti orthodontic archwires at different temperatures. Eur. J. Orthod. 2013, 35, 407–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. El Kouifat, M.K.; Ouaki, B.; El Hajjaji, S.; El Hamdouni, Y. Corrosion of Orthodontic Arch-Wires in Artificial Saliva Environment. J. Int. Dent. Med. Res. 2018, 11, 1636–1639. [Google Scholar]
  34. Barcelos, A.M.; Luna, A.S.; Ferreira, N.D.A.; Braga, A.V.C.; Lago, D.C.; Senna, L.F. Corrosion evaluation of orthodontic wires in artificial saliva solutions by using response surface methodology. Mater. Res. 2013, 16, 50–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Huang, H.H.; Chiu, Y.H.; Lee, T.H.; Wu, S.C.; Wang, H.W.; Su, K.H.; Hsu, C.C. Ion release from NiTi orthodontic wires in artificial saliva with various acidities. Biomaterials 2003, 24, 3585–3592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Astm, G. Standard test method for conducting potentiodynamic polarization resistance measurements. Annu. Book ASTM Stand. 2009, 3, 237–239. [Google Scholar]
  37. Schiff, N.; Dalard, F.; Lissac, M.; Morgon, L.; Grosgogeat, B. Corrosion resistance of three orthodontic brackets: A comparative study of three fluoride mouthwashes. Eur. J. Orthod. 2005, 27, 541–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Močnik, P.; Kosec, T.; Kovač, J.; Bizjak, M. The effect of pH, fluoride and tribocorrosion on the surface properties of dental archwires. Mater. Sci. Eng. C 2017, 78, 682–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Małkiewicz, K.; Sztogryn, M.; Mikulewicz, M.; Wielgus, A.; Kamiński, J.; Wierzchoń, T. Comparative assessment of the corrosion process of orthodontic archwires made of stainless steel, titanium–molybdenum and nickel–titanium alloys. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2018, 18, 941–947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Zhang, C.; He, L.; Chen, Y.; Dai, D.; Su, Y.; Shao, L. Corrosion Behavior and In Vitro Cytotoxicity of Ni-Ti and Stainless Steel Arch Wires Exposed to Lysozyme, Ovalbumin, and Bovine Serum Albumin. ACS Omega 2020, 5, 18995–19003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sharma, M.R.; Mahato, N.; Cho, M.H.; Chaturvedi, T.P.; Singh, M.M. Effect of fruit juices and chloride ions on the corrosion behavior of orthodontic archwire. Mater. Technol. 2019, 34, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Luqman, M.; Seikh, A.H.; Sarkar, A.; Ragab, S.A.; Mohammed, J.A.; Ijaz, M.F.; Abdo, H.S. A Comparative Study of the Electrochemical Behavior of α and β Phase Ti6Al4V Alloy in Ringer’s Solution. Crystals 2020, 10, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Almeraya-Calderón, F.; Jáquez-Muñoz, J.M.; Lara-Banda, M.; Zambrano-Robledo, P.; Cabral-Miramontes, J.A.; Lira-Martínez, A.; Estupinán-López, F.; Gaona Tiburcio, C. Corrosion Behavior of Titanium and Titanium Alloys in Ringer’s Solution. Int. J. Electrochem. Sci. 2022, 17, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  44. Bayramoǧlu, G.; Alemdaroǧlu, T.; Kedici, S.; Aksüt, A.A. The effect of pH on the corrosion of dental metal alloys. J. Oral Rehabil. 2000, 27, 563–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Groen, T.L. Corrosion Properties of Various Orthodontic Fixed Retention Wires. Master Thesis, Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, Wisconsin, WI, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  46. Kedici, S.P.; Abbas Aksüt, A.; Ali Kílíçarslan, M.; Bayramoǧlu, G.; Gökdemir, K. Corrosion behaviour of dental metals and alloys in different media. J. Oral Rehabil. 1998, 25, 800–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Canay, S.; Oktemer, M. In vitro corrosion behavior of 13 prosthodontic alloys. Quintessence Int. 1992, 23, 279–287. [Google Scholar]
  48. Gil, F.J.; Sánchez, L.A.; Espías, A.; Planell, J.A. In vitro corrosion behaviour and metallic ion release of different prosthodontic alloys. Int. Dent. J. 1999, 49, 361–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tamam, E. Ağartma Işleminin Temel Metal Alaşımı Üzerindeki Etkisinin in Vitro Değerlendirilmesi. PhD Thesis, Ankara University, Health Sciences Institute, Ankara, Turkey, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  50. Lin, M.C.; Lin, S.C.; Lee, T.H.; Huang, H.H. Surface analysis and corrosion resistance of different stainless steel orthodontic brackets in artificial saliva. Angle Orthod. 2006, 76, 322–329. [Google Scholar]
  51. Uzun, İ.H.; Bayındır, F. Dental uygulamalarda titanyum ve özellikleri. J. Atatürk Univ. Fac. Dent. 2010, 20, 213–220. [Google Scholar]
  52. House, K.; Sernetz, F.; Dymock, D.; Sandy, J.R.; Ireland, A.J. Corrosion of orthodontic appliances-should we care? Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2008, 133, 584–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Schiff, N.; Boinet, M.; Morgon, L.; Lissac, M.; Dalard, F.; Grosgogeat, B. Galvanic corrosion between orthodontic wires and brackets in fluoride mouthwashes. Eur. J. Orthod. 2006, 28, 298–304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Huang, H.H. Surface characterizations and corrosion resistance of nickel-titanium orthodontic archwires in artificial saliva of various degrees of acidity. J. Biomed. Mater. Res. A 2005, 74, 629–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, T.H.; Huang, T.K.; Lin, S.Y.; Chen, L.K.; Chou, M.Y.; Huang, H.H. Corrosion resistance of different nickel-titanium archwires in acidic fluoride-containing artificial saliva. Angle Orthod. 2010, 80, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Li, X.; Wang, J.; Han, E.; Ke, W. Influence of fluoride and chloride on corrosion behavior of NiTi orthodontic wires. Acta Biomater. 2007, 3, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kao, C.T.; Huang, T.H. Variations in surface characteristics and corrosion behaviour of metal brackets and wires in different electrolyte solutions. Eur. J. Orthod. 2010, 32, 555–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  58. Suárez, C.; Vilar, T.; Sevilla, P.; Gil, J. In vitro corrosion behavior of lingual orthodontic archwires. Int. J. Corros. 2011, 2011, 482485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jfb 14 00081 g001 550
Figure 1. EDX analysis of Dead Soft retainer.
Figure 1. EDX analysis of Dead Soft retainer.
Jfb 14 00081 g001
Jfb 14 00081 g002 550
Figure 2. Three electrode system used for potentiodynamic polarization tests in Ringer’s solution at 37 ± 1 °C.
Figure 2. Three electrode system used for potentiodynamic polarization tests in Ringer’s solution at 37 ± 1 °C.
Jfb 14 00081 g002
Jfb 14 00081 g003 550
Figure 3. Test result of Ti6Al4V retainer wire-Test 3 and Tafel Extrapolation on EC-Lab Program.
Figure 3. Test result of Ti6Al4V retainer wire-Test 3 and Tafel Extrapolation on EC-Lab Program.
Jfb 14 00081 g003
Jfb 14 00081 g004 550
Figure 4. Electrochemical analysis. Red line: Mean potentiodynamic polarization curve in pH 7 Ringer’s solutions, Black line: Mean potentiodynamic polarization curves in pH 3.5 Ringer’s solutions.
Figure 4. Electrochemical analysis. Red line: Mean potentiodynamic polarization curve in pH 7 Ringer’s solutions, Black line: Mean potentiodynamic polarization curves in pH 3.5 Ringer’s solutions.
Jfb 14 00081 g004
Jfb 14 00081 g005 550
Figure 5. Scanning electron microscopy observations at 200× magnification. For Group 1: (A1); Before Experiment, (B1); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C1); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. For Group 2: (A2); Before Experiment, (B2); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C2); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. For Group 6: (A3); Before Experiment, (B3); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C3); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. (Scale bars for all groups: HV 10.00 kV, spot 3.0, mag 200×, det ETD, mode SE, WD 8.3-9.8 mm, 500µm, Quanta FEG).
Figure 5. Scanning electron microscopy observations at 200× magnification. For Group 1: (A1); Before Experiment, (B1); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C1); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. For Group 2: (A2); Before Experiment, (B2); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C2); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. For Group 6: (A3); Before Experiment, (B3); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C3); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. (Scale bars for all groups: HV 10.00 kV, spot 3.0, mag 200×, det ETD, mode SE, WD 8.3-9.8 mm, 500µm, Quanta FEG).
Jfb 14 00081 g005
Jfb 14 00081 g006 550
Figure 6. Scanning electron microscopy observations at 200× magnification. For Group 3 (A1); Before Experiment, (B1); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C1); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. For Group 4 (A2); Before Experiment, (B2); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C2); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. For Group 5 (A3); Before Experiment, (B3); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C3); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. (Scale bars for all groups: HV 10.00 kV, spot 3.0, mag 200×, det ETD, mode SE, WD 8.3–9.8 mm, 500µm, Quanta FEG).
Figure 6. Scanning electron microscopy observations at 200× magnification. For Group 3 (A1); Before Experiment, (B1); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C1); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. For Group 4 (A2); Before Experiment, (B2); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C2); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. For Group 5 (A3); Before Experiment, (B3); pH 7 Ringer’s solution, (C3); pH 3.5 Ringer’s solution. (Scale bars for all groups: HV 10.00 kV, spot 3.0, mag 200×, det ETD, mode SE, WD 8.3–9.8 mm, 500µm, Quanta FEG).
Jfb 14 00081 g006
Table
Table 1. Percentage of elements in assessed retainers for calculating equivalent weight (EW) and theoretical density (TD).
Table 1. Percentage of elements in assessed retainers for calculating equivalent weight (EW) and theoretical density (TD).
Fe (%)Cr (%)Ti (%)Ni (%)Ag (%)Cu (%)Pt (%)Al (%)V (%)Au (%)EW(g)TD (g/cm3)
Group 174180800000027.6887.81
Group 273180900000027.7027.82
Group 300100000000011.974.5
Group 40090000064011.7204.43
Group 5000016913006210.36317.23
Group 674180800000027.6887.81
EW: Equivalent weight, TD: Theoretical density, Fe: Iron, Cr: Crom, Ti: Titanium, Ni: Nickel, Ag: Siver, Cu: Copper, Pt: Platinum, Al: Aluminum V: Vanadium, Au: Gold.
Table
Table 2. Current density (icor(µA/cm2)) values.
Table 2. Current density (icor(µA/cm2)) values.
Icor (µA/cm2)
Groups (n = 5)pH 7 Ringer’s Solution
(Mean ± sd)		pH 3.5 Ringer’s Solution
(Mean ± sd)		p-Value
Group 11.04 ± 0.681.05 ± 0.590.917 m
Group 20.27 ± 0.190.66 ± 0.24* 0.047 m
Group 30.22 ± 0.090.25 ± 0.090.917 m
Group 40.12 ± 0.020.13 ± 0.040.251 m
Group 52.43 ± 0.864.34 ± 2.890.117 m
Group 61.01 ± 0.131.78 ± 0.63* 0.047 m
p-value0.000 K0.000 K
K: Kruskal-Wallis test, m: Mann-Whitney U test, n: Number of samples, *: p < 0.05, p: Significance value, sd: Standard deviation, Icor (µA/cm2): Current density.
Table
Table 3. Corrosion rate (mm/year) values.
Table 3. Corrosion rate (mm/year) values.
Corrosion Rate (mm/year)
Groups (n = 5)pH 7 Ringer’s Solution
(Mean ± sd)		pH 3.5 Ringer’s Solution
(Mean ± sd)		p-Value
Group 10.012 ± 0.0080.012 ± 0.0070.917 m
Group 20.003 ± 0.0020.008 ± 0.003* 0.047 m
Group 30.002 ± 0.0010.002 ± 0.0010.917 m
Group 40.001 ± 0.0000.001 ± 0.0000.251 m
Group 50.005 ± 0.0020.009 ± 0.0060.117 m
Group 60.012 ± 0.0020.021 ± 0.007* 0.047 m
p-value0.001 K0.000 K
K: Kruskal-Wallis test, m: Mann-Whitney U test, n: Number of samples, *: p < 0.05, p: Significance value, sd: Standard deviation.
Table
Table 4. Polarization resistance (Rp (Ωcm2)) values.
Table 4. Polarization resistance (Rp (Ωcm2)) values.
Rp (Ωcm2) × 104
Groups (n = 5)pH 7 Ringer’s Solution
(Mean ± sd)		pH 3.5 Ringer’s Solution
(Mean ± sd)		p-Value
Group 17.28 ± 6.453.48 ± 1.910.175 m
Group 221.06 ± 12.6111.29 ± 6.070.076 m
Group 334.66 ± 25.9018.62 ± 4.050.175 m
Group 447.32 ± 7.4534.12 ± 10.07* 0.047 m
Group 52.40 ± 0.751.82 ± 1.220.117 m
Group 65.00 ± 0.505.77 ± 3.810.602 m
p-value0.000 K0.000 K
K: Kruskal-Wallis test, m: Mann-Whitney U test, n: Number of samples, *: p < 0.05, p: Significance value, sd: Standard deviation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kumrular, B.; Cicek, O.; Dağ, İ.E.; Avar, B.; Erener, H. Evaluation of the Corrosion Resistance of Different Types of Orthodontic Fixed Retention Appliances: A Preliminary Laboratory Study. J. Funct. Biomater. 2023, 14, 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14020081

AMA Style

Kumrular B, Cicek O, Dağ İE, Avar B, Erener H. Evaluation of the Corrosion Resistance of Different Types of Orthodontic Fixed Retention Appliances: A Preliminary Laboratory Study. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2023; 14(2):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14020081

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kumrular, Busra, Orhan Cicek, İlker Emin Dağ, Baris Avar, and Hande Erener. 2023. "Evaluation of the Corrosion Resistance of Different Types of Orthodontic Fixed Retention Appliances: A Preliminary Laboratory Study" Journal of Functional Biomaterials 14, no. 2: 81. https://doi.org/10.3390/jfb14020081

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop