“Men will never barter their souls or spill blood for it; yet this time-tested stainless steel, with the single exception of intrinsic value, offers more desirable characteristics to the fine-metal worker than do the precious metals themselves. The craftsman asks only that his material be chemically inert, naturally beautiful, strong yet amenable to his artistry; it is the buyer who measures precious metals by price.” (Commercial advertisement touting stainless steel [ca 1935]1)

FOREWORD

Like metallurgy, dentistry has a long history of artistic creativity. Over 4500 years ago when the metal worker was sweating copper from malachite for weapons, making primitive tools from “bia' n pet” (meteoric iron), and separating gold from crushed quartz stone literally using what became known as the Golden Fleece,2,3 the “Toother” was likely splinting the teeth of the Egyptian court.4,5 Time passed from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age and the Industrial Revolution until, in the latter half of the 19th century, Henry Clifton Sorby6,7 (1863–1887) and Edward Hartley Angle8 (1886–1930) professionally ascended to become the pioneers of modern metallography and modern orthodontics, respectively. Yet from all these artistic developments, the formalized scientific understanding of both fields was limited to about the last 100 years. This series of three articles traces the evolution, development, and characteristics of orthodontic materials from the first applications from the past to the present; the research developments on composites, titanium, and low-friction materials from the present to the immediate future; and the changing paradigm of tooth mobility and its associated roles in biotechnology, genomic advances, nanotechnology, and simulated chemistry from the immediate future and beyond. In this first article of the series, let us now explore the fascinating chronology of “Orthodontic Biomaterials: From the Past to the Present.”

THE BEGINNINGS

Teeth were regarded by the ancients as very precious to the extent that “…  special penalties [were exacted] for knocking out the teeth of an individual, either freeman or slave.”9 As early as 400 BC, Hippocrates referenced in his writings the correction of tooth irregularities.10 And while Greece was in its Golden Age, the Etruscans (the precursors of the Romans) were burying their dead with appliances that were used to maintain space and prevent collapse of the dentition during life.11,12 Then in a Roman tomb in Egypt, Breccia finds a number of teeth bound with a gold wire,13 and at the time of Christ, Aurelius Cornelius Celsus first records the treatment of teeth by finger pressure.12 Thus, inherent malocclusions and the use of corrective forces are recognized, the virtue of maintaining space is appreciated, and the first orthodontic material is documented—a gold ligature wire.

EARLY CONTRIBUTORS

The French and English dominated the earliest contributions to the field of orthodontics, which as yet had not been formally named. Among these contributors is Fauchard (1723) who invents the expansion arch and gives the first comprehensive discussion of appliances.14 The reputed father of dentistry details the use of ligature wires and gold or silver mechanical devices. He corrects teeth using finger pressure and silk thread and intuitively recognizes that the source of a force does not matter in mechanicotherapy.

In 1819 Delabarre introduces the wire crib, and this marks the birth of contemporary orthodontics.15 Later, Schangé16 would show that the gold wire crib afforded adequate anchorage and formed a base for attachments.12 A century later, Lufkin17 would state that “… Schangé made an invaluable contribution” because it really marked the beginning of edgewise. In the second half of the 19th century (ca 1865), Kingsley advocates plates as retaining devices. In the early part of the 20th century, Angle would tout this device as one of the best tooth maintainers.18 Fifteen years later, Kingsley would write his book, “Oral Deformities,” which would become the most comprehensive text on the subject in its day.17 In 1877, Johnston would recommend placing zinc in a predrilled hole of a steel jack-screw, which was simultaneously invented by Dwinelle and Gaine (ca 1849), to “… give it the same immunity from oxidation as gold or platinum.”12 Modern textbooks term this the concept of the ‘sacrificial anode.’19 

THE ENLIGHTENMENT

No matter how some of his contemporaries personally felt about Edward Angle, there is no question that he dominated this era. In 1908, Norman William Kingsley already called Angle “… one of the greatest empirics of his day.”20 Angle identified and lauded many people who sought the truth—Fauchard, Fox, Harris, Kingsley, Magill, Schangé, and Wescott;21 he also criticized and wrote scathing letters to those he thought were poisoning the newly formed practice of “orthodontia” as it was called in 1917. He particularly admired Kingsley who, like Farrar (1926), was hailed by his contemporaries as “the father of orthodontia.” Kingsley made particularly substantive contributions to our knowledge of occipital anchorage, which in that period would have been constructed using elastic straps, forged Stubbs' steel, and a swaged silver plate.18,20,21 

On the other hand, a material was the proximate cause of the rift between those who used heavy and bulky nickel-silver appliances (the German School) and Edward Angle and his contemporaries.21 In 1906, Angle and most of his graduates resigned from The Society, in part because of their difference toward nickel-silver alloys (ie, German silver or “Neusilber”), which were first introduced by Angle to the United States in 188720 but which were actually copper, nickel, and zinc alloys that contained no silver22 (Table 1). During this period, gold, platinum, silver, steel, gum rubber, vulcanite and, occasionally, wood, ivory, zinc, and copper were used as was brass in the form of loops, hooks, spurs, and ligatures.12,20 Fourteen- to 18-karat gold was routinely used for wires, bands, clasps, ligatures, and spurs,38 as were iridium-platinum bands and archwires1 and platinized gold for brackets.39 The advantage of gold was that you could heat treat it to variable stiffnesses (30%), which was comparable to today's beta-titanium alloy24,40 (Table 2). This was accomplished by heating at 450°C (842°F) for 2 minutes, cooling to 250°C (482°F) over a period of 30 minutes, and finally quenching to room temperature.26,63 Gold had excellent corrosion resistance too. In 1920, Dewey presents a paper on the clock spring auxiliary as an “Application of Spring Forces from Gold and Platinum Removable Appliances.”18,21 This presentation was credited as being the long-awaited response to the nickel-silver appliances that caused the rift 14 years earlier.

TABLE 1. 

Compositions of Alloys Used During the 20th Century

Compositions of Alloys Used During the 20th Century
Compositions of Alloys Used During the 20th Century
TABLE 2. 

Reported Properties of Alloys Used During the 20th Century

Reported Properties of Alloys Used During the 20th Century
Reported Properties of Alloys Used During the 20th Century

Finally, in the Dental Cosmos (1928), we see the design of what was to become known as the edgewise appliance (Figure 1),64 which was never formally named by Edward Angle in his lifetime.65 On August 11, 1930, Edward Angle passed into history. As a tribute to him, we should recognize that in a 40-year career, he truly did understand patients and their tissues, had knowledge of biology and engineering, comprehended mechanical requirements, and contributed four distinct biomechanical appliances65—the Angle E arch, the pin and tube appliance, the ribbon arch, and the edgewise appliance.38 No one has yet eclipsed those accomplishments. One could readily argue that Edward Angle was one of the first biomedical engineers. Yet with all these accomplishments, Angle was not the great innovator of novel materials—others would fulfill that role.

FIGURE 1.

Edgewise paraphernalia of ca 1928.64 (A) The wingless bracket on and off a band strip; (B) the prototype of the modern bracket on and off a band strip; (C) A with an archwire engaged; (D) B with an archwire engaged; (E) various types of staples; (F) a ligature wire; and (G) threaded washers, which were used as spacers

FIGURE 1.

Edgewise paraphernalia of ca 1928.64 (A) The wingless bracket on and off a band strip; (B) the prototype of the modern bracket on and off a band strip; (C) A with an archwire engaged; (D) B with an archwire engaged; (E) various types of staples; (F) a ligature wire; and (G) threaded washers, which were used as spacers

STAGNATION ABOUNDS

From the 1930s to the 1960s, the proliferation of materials did not occur. With the death of Edward Angle, a time of stagnation eventuates. As Thurow said, “… the ‘edgewise men’ literally rode off in all directions at once.”65 What became more important at that time because of their lack of development were cephalometrics and biological aspects.65,66 And so for a while, those fields of knowledge were emphasized, as profound changes to orthodontics occurred at the expense of novel materials and innovative mechanics. It is during this period that Begg gives this warning to the orthodontic community: “Orthodontics is ill-served by presentation of new orthodontic techniques that are claimed to be based on adaptations of engineering principles but that have not been proven suitable for successful treatment of patients.”67 We should not forget that Cassandra-like quote because, later on, as a period of proliferation yields to one of consolidation, many materials that would be offered to the practitioner would be retracted either because they were not effective as engineering materials or because they had other clinical shortcomings.

During this materials stagnation, we learn that gold alloys have deficiencies too. At the 1931 meeting of the American Association of Orthodontists (AAO), Norris Taylor and George Paffenbarger discussed wrought alloys and intimated that more springiness and fewer cracks at tension points were possible.21 And at nominally $30 per ounce, Kelsey said that they were costly. Little did they know that the cost of gold would spike to nearly $900 in early 1980!68 

By the early 1930s, stainless steels were generally available. Although Dumas, Guillet, and Portevin first made stainless steel in France, its “stainless” qualities were first reported in Germany by Monnartz also around 1900–1910.69 Stainless steel languished until World War I spurred the development of three different kinds of stainless steels, and ironically those developers received the credit for the discovery. During that war, the Germans, British, and Americans developed an austenitic, a martensitic, and a ferritic stainless steel, respectively.70 Actually 6 years before Edward Angle expired, Dr Lucien DeCoster of Belgium was experimenting with “rustless” steel.71 In the West and Southwest, Carman, Walsh, Bell, and others experimented with stainless steel and cobalt-chromium alloys,21 the latter of which paralleled the work on Vitallium (1927) by Venable and Stuck at Howmedica's Austenal Labs.72,73 Half a world away, Begg started fabricating 0.457 mm (0.018-inch) round stainless steel wires with vertical loops and intermaxillary hooks.39 In the early 1940s, Begg would partner with Wilcox to make what they envisioned to be the ultimate in resilient orthodontic wires—Australian stainless steels. Yet, it was not until about 1960 that stainless steel was generally accepted. Nonetheless, in 1933 we find that stainless steel and a chromium alloy are being used, as Archie Brusse (the founder of Rocky Mountain Metal Products) gives a table clinic on the first complete stainless steel system at the American Society of Orthodontists (ASO) in Oklahoma City74—and so the struggle between gold and stainless steel formally begins. For a time, the automotive manufacturers even got involved. In 1936, the Ford Motor Company made six prototype stainless steel sedans and drove them over 320,000 km (200,000 miles)(Figure 2A).75 When they were restored at the end of the 20th century, every piece of plain carbon steel had to be replaced except for their bodies, which were still gleaming. Just a year earlier (1935), Stolzenberg reports on the first ligatureless edgewise bracket—the Russell Lock appliance.79,80 This bracket purports some distinct advantages; ie, by a screw device, the clearance can be continuously adjusted from its minimal friction to infinite friction. In 1942, George Herbert speaks on materials at the AAO meeting on materials about “Fabricating of Chrome Alloys in Different Types of Treatment Appliances”—and the controversy heats up.

FIGURE 2.

Products made from alloys that orthodontics adopted. (A) 1936 Ford sedan made from stainless steel;75 (B) mainspring of a watch fabricated from cobalt-chromium alloy;50 (C) hydraulic shape-memory coupling manufactured from nickel-titanium intermetallic composition;76,77 and (D) SR-71 Blackbird constructed from titanium-molybdenum alloy.78 

FIGURE 2.

Products made from alloys that orthodontics adopted. (A) 1936 Ford sedan made from stainless steel;75 (B) mainspring of a watch fabricated from cobalt-chromium alloy;50 (C) hydraulic shape-memory coupling manufactured from nickel-titanium intermetallic composition;76,77 and (D) SR-71 Blackbird constructed from titanium-molybdenum alloy.78 

Regarding acrylics, unaesthetic vulcanite plates with 1.02 mm (0.040-inch) resilient gold wires were replaced by translucent acrylic plates soon after acrylic's discovery in 1937.18,42,81 Vulcanite was a vulcanized (cross-linked) natural rubber product that was developed by Nelson Goodyear in 1851 and patented for dental plates in 1855.81 In the 1880s, Keely was correcting misplaced teeth with black Vulcanite plates having jack screws and “well-seasoned” pins of pine.20 Hawley offered such appliances a few years after they were exhibited by others at the 1912 Eastern Association of the Graduates of the Angle School of Orthodontics.18 Although cellulose, phenol-formaldehyde, vinyl polymers and copolymers, styrene, and alkyd resins were explored,82 by the 1940s, acrylic materials were being polymerized into plates by reacting, under heat and pressure, doughs made from methyl methacrylate monomer and acrylic powder, the latter of which reduced shrinkage.42,83 Later, self-curing acrylics would be made by adding an accelerator to the initiator that creates free radicals42,81 in order to hasten the Trommsdorff gel effect.84 In World War II, acrylic would be used as the cockpit canopy in aircraft because of its transparent qualities.85,86 Only after pilots were injured as a result of projected chards of the acrylic, would physicians also learn of its relative bioinertness.87 Ultimately, acrylic was so successful that, by 1946, 98% of all denture bases were constructed of this polymer or its copolymers.81 Today acrylic is the most frequently used material for retainers—whether they be a Hawley or a lingual wire-retaining device, the latter of which was first fabricated in 0.762 mm (0.030-inch) gold wire using bands with lingual spurs and hooks.18 What Kingsley (1908) said almost 100 years ago still rings true today—that “… the success of orthodontia as a science and an art now lies in the retainer.”20 

Now we arrive at a very interesting point in history—“The Edgewater” tradition. The Edgewater Beach Hotel in Chicago was a site of many AAO Meetings. If its walls still stood, it would tell many stories about materials in orthodontics that transpired during those meetings of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s. One notable meeting occurred in 1950, when two papers were presented back-to-back, which just tells you how competitive stainless steel and gold had become.21 One was presented by Dr Brusse, who spoke about “The Management of Stainless Steel” using modern colored moving pictures; the other was presented by Drs Crozat and Gore, who talked about “Precious Metal Removable Appliances.” The presentations may have instilled some of the same premonitions that man-ape experienced when he encountered early ape-man during that last, fateful day on the savannah of Africa… .

Stainless steel is now gaining prominence as the soft brass ligature wire, which was credited to Angle, is now displaced by an 0.254 mm (0.010-inch) soft stainless steel wire.18,20 Only 3 years later, Steiner introduces the 0.457 mm × 0.711 mm (0.018-inch × 0.028-inch) slot for stainless steel wires in lieu of the 0.559 mm × 0.711 mm (0.022-inch × 0.028-inch slot for gold alloy wires,88 and Jackson proposes to eliminate even the Crozat appliance by fabricating it in stainless steel and a nickel-chromium alloy (Tophet metal).21 Despite the success of the new slot, the gold Crozat appliance survives to today.89 In this period the ligatureless Johnson friction cap appears with its twin-wire configuration, which had existed since the early 1930s (Figure 3A).21,90 

FIGURE 3.

Some premier brackets of the 20th century. (A) The gold or chromium alloy Johnson friction cap;21,90 (B) a SPEED self-ligating stainless steel bracket;91 (C) the Starfire single-crystal sapphire bracket;92 and (D) an Allure polycrystalline alumina bracket.93 

FIGURE 3.

Some premier brackets of the 20th century. (A) The gold or chromium alloy Johnson friction cap;21,90 (B) a SPEED self-ligating stainless steel bracket;91 (C) the Starfire single-crystal sapphire bracket;92 and (D) an Allure polycrystalline alumina bracket.93 

To close out this age, a glimmer of things to come is seen as Buonocore94 proposes the use of a 30-second, 85% phosphoric acid etch to enhance bonding of acrylic materials to enamel surfaces. This treatment, along with the additions of silane coupling agents to the filler particles95 and the use of photoinitiators for the catalyst system,96 becomes the basis for the bonding adhesives that would be used to mount brackets directly onto teeth.97,98 It is now 1958, and Dewel unifies the practice and science under one aegis—orthodontics.21 

PROLIFERATION ABOUNDS

By the 1960s, gold was universally abandoned in favor of stainless steel (Figure 4A).65,99 This is how stainless steel was marketed in lieu of gold: (1) the force per unit activation of stainless steel was greater than that of gold (ie, high stiffness was an advantage they claimed); and (2) by being smaller in size, stainless steel appliances were regarded as being more esthetic than gold appliances (ie, the smaller the appliance is, the more it appears to disappear). Stainless steel also had excellent corrosion resistance, work-hardening capabilities, and a frictional magnitude that was so low that it became the standard of the profession.100–102 In the 1960s, bracket bands are disappearing as the bonded miniature bracket appears—thereby punctuating the beginning of esthetic orthodontics (Figure 4B). Once again, the philosophy was advanced that an appliance, which cannot be made transparent or tooth-colored, should at least be made smaller.18 

FIGURE 4.

Orthodontic cases from yesteryear to today. (A) A fully banded patient with extensive stainless steel (SS) loop mechanics, ca 1965;65 (B) a patient fitted with maxillary polycarbonate brackets and a Teflon-coated SS archwire and mandibular SS conventional brackets, ca 1980; and (C) a patient with conventional straight-wire CP-titanium brackets, ca 1995 (F. Sernetz, personal communication)

FIGURE 4.

Orthodontic cases from yesteryear to today. (A) A fully banded patient with extensive stainless steel (SS) loop mechanics, ca 1965;65 (B) a patient fitted with maxillary polycarbonate brackets and a Teflon-coated SS archwire and mandibular SS conventional brackets, ca 1980; and (C) a patient with conventional straight-wire CP-titanium brackets, ca 1995 (F. Sernetz, personal communication)

In the 1960s cobalt-chromium alloys are introduced (Figure 2B).50 These wrought alloys are different from the cast alloys used in prosthodontic dentistry because they contain not only cobalt, chromium, and molybdenum but also substantial amounts of nickel and iron.28 Like stainless steels, they have a high stiffness; but unlike stainless steels, they are available in four different tempers and are heat treatable.49,99 Different tempers permit variable amounts of formability, which is required to place loops, V-bends, and various offsets into the archwire. Once deformation is complete, however, heat treatment increases the resilience of the wire by a recommended precipitation- or age-hardening process at 482°C (900°F) for 7–12 minutes.49 Unfortunately, most practitioners never exploited this alloy to its full potential. In 1965 the proliferation of materials receives its recognition as the first AAO Committee convenes to discuss specification norms; such meetings continue.

In about 1970, plastic brackets were injection molded from an aromatic polymer, polycarbonate (Figure 4B). Shortly thereafter, practitioners noticed physical and mechanical changes associated with stains or odors and time-dependent deformation or creep,103 respectively.

In 1962 Buehler discovers nitinol at the Naval Ordinance Laboratory, so-called because it was an acronym for Nickel-Titanium Naval Ordnance Laboratory (Figure 2C).33,76,77,104 By 1970 Andreason brings this intermetallic composition of 50% nickel and 50% titanium to orthodontics through the University of Iowa.99,105 The Unitek Corporation licenses the patent (1974) and offers a stabilized martensitic alloy that does not exhibit any shape-memory effect (SME) under the name, Nitinol (Figure 5A).60,106 This product has the lowest modulus for any cross section and has the most extensive deactivation (range) capabilities.54–56 Now light forces can be offered over a protracted range as any of four combinations of passive or active behavior and of martensitic or austenitic phase are possible. In some cases the thermoelastic or the pseudoelastic effects (or both) are also exploited,106,108 the latter of which is also termed superelastic, in part because the material has so much springback after displaying what appears to be pure plasticity. By 1986, two “superelastic” alloys are offered—a Japanese NiTi109,110 and a Chinese NiTi.34,111 These are active austenitic alloys that form stress-induced martensite (Figure 5B).106,107 In the early 1990s Neo Sentalloy is introduced as a true active martensitic alloy that undergoes an SME by taking advantage of the pseudoelastic effect during forming and the thermoelastic effect during recovery (Figure 5C).107,108 In 1994, three Copper NiTi products are introduced,34 which have chromium in them as well (Table 1),112 and display the SME at 27°C, 35°C, or 40°C. Most recently, nickel-free, titanium-niobium wires have been introduced as a finishing wire.36,37,48 

FIGURE 5.

Mechanical characteristics of nickel-titanium intermetallic compounds. (A) For a stabilized martensitic material when the temperature is less than the martensite finish temperature (Mf) but the strain (deformation) is more than ca 0.08;60,106 (B) for an active austenitic material, ie, a stress-induced martensitic material (SIM), when the temperature is less than the deformation temperature of yielding (Md) but greater than the austenite finish (Af) temperature;106,107 and (C) for an active martensitic material when the temperature is less than Mf and the strain is less than ca 0.08.107,108 

FIGURE 5.

Mechanical characteristics of nickel-titanium intermetallic compounds. (A) For a stabilized martensitic material when the temperature is less than the martensite finish temperature (Mf) but the strain (deformation) is more than ca 0.08;60,106 (B) for an active austenitic material, ie, a stress-induced martensitic material (SIM), when the temperature is less than the deformation temperature of yielding (Md) but greater than the austenite finish (Af) temperature;106,107 and (C) for an active martensitic material when the temperature is less than Mf and the strain is less than ca 0.08.107,108 

Returning to other materials of the 1970s, elastics of all sorts find their niches in the orthodontic profession. Gum elastics were first employed by Maynard (1843); Tucker (1850) was the first to cut rubber bands from rubber tubing.12 Independent of whether elastomerics are made from ester- or ether-based polyurethanes,29 they possess real limitations with respect to force retention, color fastness, and odor prevention. Plastic coatings on archwires occur too (Figure 4B). One such coating, poly(tetrafluoroethylene) or Teflon, has the lowest friction.113 When this quite soft material is placed in the hostile mechanicochemical environment of the oral cavity, the coating skins off or disappears in as little as 3 weeks.

Self-ligating or ligatureless brackets reappeared in the mid-1970s as Strite, Ltd, marketed them; these brackets had a stainless steel body and a positive-locking, spring-clip mechanism (Figure 3B).91,114,115 Their advantage was that unlike conventional ligation, friction is purportedly reduced—but most importantly, friction becomes more reproducible.

In 1977 the beta phase of titanium was stabilized at room temperature, and the aerospace titanium-molybdenum alloy (β-III) was produced (Figure 2D).78,99 This beta-titanium alloy has a modulus closest to that of traditional gold along with good springback, formability, and weldability.24 By the end of the 1970s, four major groups of wire materials came into existence, three of which developed different amounts of range for a given constant force (Figure 6A), or if you kept the same range, they developed different magnitudes of force for a given constant deactivation (Figure 6B). As a consequence, the armamentarium has expanded from just gold or stainless steel, and two slots have been popularized—the 0.559 mm (0.022-inch) slot, which was originally used for gold, and the 0.457 mm (0.018-inch) slot, which was advocated for stainless steel. Within the capabilities of the present armamentarium, both slots become viable alternatives.

FIGURE 6.

Relative force-deactivation characteristics for the four major groups of wire materials—stainless steel (SS), cobalt-chromium (CoCr), nickel-titanium (NiTi), and beta-titanium (β-Ti)—having identical dimensions. (A) When the relative force is maintained constant; (B) when the relative deactivation is maintained constant

FIGURE 6.

Relative force-deactivation characteristics for the four major groups of wire materials—stainless steel (SS), cobalt-chromium (CoCr), nickel-titanium (NiTi), and beta-titanium (β-Ti)—having identical dimensions. (A) When the relative force is maintained constant; (B) when the relative deactivation is maintained constant

At this point, scientific investigators had to decide how to compare the plethora of materials. In the 1940s the strength and flexibility of wrought gold alloys were evaluated using tables that were based on measurements of the proportional limits and the wire diameters.116 Even in Thurow's day, variable cross-section orthodontics was the norm because stainless steel and cobalt-chromium wires essentially had the same stiffnesses (Figure 7A).65 Once the titanium alloys entered the scene, however, variable-modulus orthodontics became possible,118 and elastic property ratios could be derived in which both geometric and material characteristics were important. Using equations, tables, or mathematically based figures called nomograms (Figure 7B),46,117,119,120 the practitioner could now compare one wire with another in terms of its three elastic properties of clinical importance: stiffness, strength, and range.

FIGURE 7.

Methods to compare elastic property ratios. (A) Tables such as this one to evaluate variable cross-section orthodontics vs a 12 mil (ie, 0.012 inch = 0.305 mm) stainless steel or cobalt-chromium archwire;65 (B) nomograms such as this one to evaluate variable cross section and variable-modulus orthodontics vs a 16 mil (ie, 0.016 inch = 0.406 mm) beta-titanium archwire. In general, to convert mil to mm, multiply by 0.0254.117 

FIGURE 7.

Methods to compare elastic property ratios. (A) Tables such as this one to evaluate variable cross-section orthodontics vs a 12 mil (ie, 0.012 inch = 0.305 mm) stainless steel or cobalt-chromium archwire;65 (B) nomograms such as this one to evaluate variable cross section and variable-modulus orthodontics vs a 16 mil (ie, 0.016 inch = 0.406 mm) beta-titanium archwire. In general, to convert mil to mm, multiply by 0.0254.117 

CONSOLIDATION OCCURS

In the 1980s we have esthetic brackets made from single-crystal sapphire (Figure 3C)92,121,122 and from polycrystalline alumina (Figure 3D)93,123,124—both having the same inert chemical composition, Al2O3. We also have brackets made from polycrystalline zirconia material, ZrO2,125 which reportedly has the greatest toughness among all ceramics.19 Unfortunately, both these materials inhibit sliding mechanics,125–127 and they have debonding problems.123,128 The single-crystal brackets also exhibit specular highlights, whereas some polycrystalline ZrO2 have intrinsically odd colors. In the early 1990s the first pseudocomposite wire from optical fibers is marketed,129,130 which financially is a failure.

From these examples, we can see that this was clearly a period of consolidation, as practitioners were balking from products that just did not work very well (as was the case in the 1970s for the early Nitinol wires), and manufacturers were being compelled either to improve them or remove them from their inventories. Such was the case for early single-crystal sapphire brackets because during torquing, the tie-wings tended to break off or,128,131 worse yet, removed facial enamel from the teeth.132,133 Moreover, when placed on mandibular incisors or canines, for example, ceramic brackets abraded or chipped the opposing maxillary teeth.128,134,135 As if this was not enough, ceramic brackets in combination with any archwire, except nickel-titanium, always produced the highest frictional forces, whether in the dry (Figure 8A) or in the wet (Figure 8B) state.124,125,136 Furthermore, optical fibers, whether coated with nylon or hot-melt adhesives, had such low stiffness properties that they qualified as a “placebo” wire that would only acclimate a patient to the general architecture of his or her appliances.129,130 Such a poor performer would later handicap fiber-reinforced composites in the corporate mind of orthodontic manufacturers.

FIGURE 8.

Frictional characteristics of various bracket materials (stainless steel [SS],136 single-crystal sapphire [SCS],124 polycrystalline alumina [PCA],123,124,136 and polycrystalline zirconia [ZrO2]125) in combination with metallic archwires (stainless steel [SS], cobalt-chromium [CoCr], nickel-titanium [NiTi], and beta-titanium [β-Ti]) (A) in the dry state; (B) in the wet state using human saliva

FIGURE 8.

Frictional characteristics of various bracket materials (stainless steel [SS],136 single-crystal sapphire [SCS],124 polycrystalline alumina [PCA],123,124,136 and polycrystalline zirconia [ZrO2]125) in combination with metallic archwires (stainless steel [SS], cobalt-chromium [CoCr], nickel-titanium [NiTi], and beta-titanium [β-Ti]) (A) in the dry state; (B) in the wet state using human saliva

THE COMING OF A NEW AGE

As we enter the 1990s we look back on that century in terms of various type of overall innovations. We had the auto, aviation, polymer, nuclear, space, and computer ages. Indeed, it has been said that more knowledge was amassed in the 20th century than in all previous centuries of mankind. And what we learn about orthodontic materials comes from many of those burgeoning fields. From the viewpoint of true esthetics—in other words, from the viewpoint of not making things smaller but of making them tooth-colored—practitioners assert that esthetics are desirable but that function is paramount. And so as we close this century we begin to see attempts to market a continuous fiber composite, success to manufacture CP-titanium and its products (Figure 4C) (F. Sernetz, personal communication), and modifications to improve sliding mechanics through ceramic-bracket inserts and self-ligating brackets. These topics will be the focus of the next article in the series entitled “Orthodontic Biomaterials: From the Present to the Immediate Future.”

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Mr. John Q. Whitley for his assistance with the artwork and the references.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
1
Humphrey
,
W. R.
The forum: chrome alloy in orthodontia. Is it here to stay?
Int J Orthod Dent Children
1935
.
21
:
594
595
.
2
Craddock
,
P. T.
Early Metal Mining and Production.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution; 1995:106, 110, 130–131
.
3
Cramb
,
A. W.
A Short History of Metals.
.
4
Weinberger
,
B. W.
The dental art in ancient Egypt.
J Am Dent Assoc
1947
.
34
:
170
184
.
5
Junker
,
H.
Giza I. Die Mastabas der IV Dynastie auf dem Westfriedhof: Volume 3.
Vienna, Austria; 1929
.
6
Brown
,
D. V.
Metallurgy Basics.
New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1983:4–5
.
7
Smith
,
C. S.
A History of Metallography.
Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press; 1960:87–185
.
8
Proffit
,
W. R.
Contemporary Orthodontics. 2nd ed.
St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1993:2
.
9
1st Code Roman Law
450 B.C
.
10
Hippocrates
Epidemics (Sixth Book); 400 B.C
.
11
Guerini
,
V.
A History of Dentistry.
Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Febiger; 1909:67–76
.
12
Weinberger
,
B. W.
Orthodontics: An Historical Review of Its Origin and Evolution—Volume 1.
St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1926:48–68, 183–195, 351–352, 478–479
.
13
Ruffer
,
M. A.
Studies in the Paleopathology of Egypt.
Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press; 1921:314
.
14
Fauchard
,
P.
Le Cirurgien Dentiste. 2nd ed.
Paris, France; 1746
.
15
Delabarre
,
C. F.
Traite de La Second Dentition.
Paris, France; 1819
.
16
Schangé
,
J. M. A.
Precis sur Le Redressement Des Dents. Part 2;.
1841
.
17
Lufkin
,
A. W.
A History of Dentistry. Chapter XVI.
Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Febiger; 1948:254–270
.
18
Strang
,
R. H. W.
A Text-Book of Orthodontia. 3rd ed.
Philadelphia, Pa: Lea & Febiger; 1950:310, 347, 701–702, 771
.
19
Shackelford
,
J. F.
Introduction to Materials Science for Engineers. 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Macmillan; 1988:367, 624–625
.
20
Weinberger
,
B. W.
Orthodontics: An Historical Review of Its Origin and Evolution—Volume 2.
St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1926:487, 501–513, 605–611, 674–680, 814–816, 863
.
21
Shankland
,
W. N.
The AAO: Biography of a Specialty Organization.
St Louis, Mo: The AAO; 1971:33, 146, 422, 456–459, 547–548, 602, 613, 646
.
22
Informationsdruck. Kupfer-Nickel-Zink Legierungen: Neusilber
Bonn, Germany: Deutsches Kupfer-Institut; 1980;13:1–11
.
23
Lyman
,
T.
ed
.
Metals Handbook: Volume 1. Properties and Selection of Metals. 8th ed.
Metals Park, Ohio: American Society for Metals; 1961:1016–1021, 1030–1031
.
24
Burstone
,
C. J.
and
A. J.
Goldberg
.
Beta titanium: a new orthodontic alloy.
Am J Orthod
1980
.
77
:
121
132
.
25
Leinfelder
,
K. F.
and
R. P.
Kusy
.
Age-hardening and tensile properties of low gold (10–14kt.) alloys.
J Biomed Mater Res
1981
.
15
:
117
135
.
26
Bach
,
E. N.
Meeting a few of the technical and clinical difficulties involved in orthodontia.
Int J Orthod Dent Children
1933
.
19
:
1097
1115
.
27
Kusy
,
R. P.
,
G. J.
Dilley
, and
J. Q.
Whitley
.
Mechanical properties of stainless steel orthodontic archwires.
Clin Mater
1988
.
3
:
41
59
.
28
Harder
,
O. E.
and
D. A.
Roberts
.
Alloy having high elastic strengths.
United States Patent Office, patent 2,524,661. Oct. 3, 1950
.
29
Ratner
,
B. D.
,
A. S.
Hoffman
,
F. J.
Schoen
, and
J. E.
Lemons
.
eds
.
Biomaterial Science: An Introduction to Materials in Medicine.
New York, NY: Academic; 1996:43, 48, 246–249
.
30
Sernetz
,
F.
Titanium and titanium alloys in orthodontics.
Table Clinic Poster Presented at The AAO Annual Session; 1996; Denver, Colo
.
31
Donachie
,
M. J.
Titanium and Titanium Alloys: Source Book.
Metals Park, Ohio: American Society for Metals; 1982:5, 11–12, 55
.
32
Donachie
,
M. J.
ed
.
Titanium: A Technical Guide.
Metals Park, Ohio: ASM International; 1988:62–68, 452
.
33
Yahia
,
L'H.
and
J.
Ryhänen
.
Bioperformance of shape memory alloys.
In: Yahia L'H, ed. Shape Memory Implants. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2000:3–4, 17
.
34
Brantley
,
W. A.
and
T.
Eliades
.
Orthodontic Materials: Scientific and Clinical Aspects.
Stuttgart, Germany: Thieme; 2001:84–97
.
35
Kusy
,
R. P.
A review of contemporary archwires: their properties and characteristics.
Angle Orthod
1997
.
67
:
197
208
.
36
Farzin-Nia
,
F.
and
R. C. L.
Sachdeva
.
Dental and orthodontic articles of reactive metals.
United States Patent Office, patent 5,904,480. May 18, 1999
.
37
Farzin-Nia
,
F.
and
R. C. L.
Sachdeva
.
Dental and orthodontic articles of reactive metals.
United States Patent Office, patent US 6,273,714 B1. August 14, 2001
.
38
Lindquist
,
J. T.
The edgewise appliance.
In: Graber TM and Swain BF, eds. Orthodontics: Current Principles and Techniques. Chapter 9. St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1985:565–571
.
39
Kesling
,
P. C.
Tip-Edge Guide and the Differential Straight-Arch Technique.
Westville, Ind: Two Swan Advertising; 2000:BB1–BB6
.
40
Goldberg
,
A. J.
and
C. V.
Shastry
.
Age hardening of orthodontic beta titanium alloys.
J Biomed Mater Res
1984
.
18
:
155
163
.
41
Love
,
A. E. H.
A Treatise on the Mathematical Theory of Elasticity.
New York, NY: Dover; 1944:105
.
42
Greener
,
E. H.
,
J. K.
Harcourt
, and
E. P.
Lautenschlager
.
Materials Science in Dentistry.
Baltimore, Md: Williams & Wilkins; 1972:52, 326–336
.
43
Craig
,
R. G.
,
F. A.
Peyton
, and
D. W.
Johnson
.
Compressive properties of enamel, dental cements, and gold.
J Dent Res
1961
.
40
:
936
945
.
44
O'Brien
,
W. J.
Dental Materials and Their Selection. 2nd ed.
Appendix A: Tabulated Values of Physical and Mechanical Properties [Data reported by JM Ney Co, Bloomfield, Conn.]. Chicago, Ill: Quintessence; 1997:331–404
.
45
Øilo
,
G.
and
N. R.
Gjerdet
.
Dental casting alloys with a low content of noble metals: physical properties.
Acta Odontol Scand
1983
.
41
:
111
116
.
46
Kusy
,
R. P.
and
A. R.
Greenberg
.
Effects of composition and cross section on the elastic properties of orthodontic archwires.
Angle Orthod
1981
.
51
:
325
341
.
47
Rucker
,
B. K.
and
R. P.
Kusy
.
Elastic properties of alternative versus single-stranded leveling archwires.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. In press
.
48
Dalstra
,
M.
,
G.
Denes
, and
B.
Melsen
.
Titanium-niobium, a new finishing wire alloy.
Clin Orthod Res
2000
.
3
:
6
14
.
49
Promotional Literature. Elgiloy and Tru-chrome Stainless Steel Orthodontic Treatment Wires
Denver, Colo: Rocky Mountain/Associates International; 1977:5–8
.
50
Promotional Literature. Elgiloy: The Cobalt-Nickel Alloy
Elgin, Ill: Elgiloy Company; 1975:6–9
.
51
Morris
,
H. F.
and
K.
Asgar
.
Physical properties and microstructure of four new commercial partial denture alloys.
J Prosthet Dent
1975
.
33
:
36
46
.
52
Morris
,
H. F.
Properties of cobalt-chromium metal ceramic alloys after heat treatment.
J Prosthet Dent
1989
.
62
:
426
433
.
53
Hodgson
,
D. E.
Shape Memory Alloys.
.
54
Kusy
,
R. P.
and
A. M.
Stush
.
Geometric and material parameters of a nickel-titanium and a beta titanium orthodontic arch wire alloy.
Dent Mater
1987
.
3
:
207
217
.
55
Andreasen
,
G. F.
and
R. E.
Morrow
.
Laboratory and clinical analyses of nitinol wire.
Am J Orthod
1978
.
73
:
142
151
.
56
Asgharnia
,
M. K.
and
W. A.
Brantley
.
Comparison of bending and tension tests for orthodontic wires.
Am J Orthod
1986
.
89
:
228
235
.
57
Goldberg
,
A. J.
,
J.
Morton
, and
C. J.
Burstone
.
The flexure modulus of elasticity of orthodontic wires.
J Dent Res
1983
.
62
:
856
858
.
58
Morrow
,
R. E.
Stored energy in orthodontic wire.
Paper presented at: The I. A.D.R. General Session; 1978; Washington, DC
.
59
Golestaneh
,
A. A.
Martensitic phase transformation in shape memory alloys. Proc. ICOMAT 79.
Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press; 1979:679
.
60
Cross
,
W. B.
,
A. H.
Kariotis
, and
F. J.
Stimler
.
Nitinol Characterization Study, NASA CR-1433.
Houston, Tex: National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 1969
.
61
Goldberg
,
A. J.
and
C. J.
Burstone
.
An evaluation of beta titanium alloys for use in orthodontic appliances.
J Dent Res
1979
.
58
:
593
600
.
62
Wood
,
R. A.
Beta Titanium Alloys—MCIC 72–11.
Columbus, Ohio: Metals and Ceramics Information Center of Battelle Columbus Laboratories. 1972
.
63
Brumfield
,
A. C.
Tentative standard methods of testing precious metal dental materials.
J Am Dent Assoc
1954
.
49
:
17
30
.
64
Angle
,
E. H.
The latest and best in orthodontic mechanism.
Dental Cosmos
1928
.
70
:
1143
1158
.
65
Thurow
,
R. C.
Edgewise Orthodontics. 3rd ed.
St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1972:v–viii, 22–34, 148, 270
.
66
Tweed
,
C. H.
Clinical Orthodontics: Volume 1.
St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1966:2, 159
.
67
Begg
,
P. R.
Begg Orthodontic Theory and Technique.
Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 1965:4
.
68
Emery
,
W. L.
ed
.
Commodity Year Book 1980.
New York, NY: Commodity Research Bureau; 1980:172
.
69
Zapffe
,
C.
The Metallurgical Background of Stainless Steel—The Miracle Metal.
Cleveland, Ohio: Republic Steel; 1960:1–7
.
70
Zapffe
,
C.
The Fascinating History of Stainless Steel—The Miracle Metal.
Cleveland, Ohio: Republic Steel; 1960:1–7
.
71
DeCoster
,
L.
The use of rustless steel in dentofacial orthopedics.
Int J Orthod Oral Surg Radiogr
1932
.
18
:
1191
1195
.
72
Venable
,
C. S.
,
W. G.
Stuck
, and
A.
Beach
.
The effects on bone of the presence of metals; based upon electrolysis.
Ann Surg
1937
.
105
:
917
938
.
73
Strength for Life: The Vitallium Alloy Story
.
74
Rocky Mountain Orthodontics Makes Dentistry a Family Affair
University of Colorado Health Sciences Center: School of Dentistry NEWS. April 19, 2000:11
.
75
Hunt
,
J. M.
Stainless steel in automobiles.
Adv Mater Proc
1996
.
149
:
39
40
.
76
Promotional Literature. Aerofit Products
.
77
Promotional Literature. Northrop/Grumman
.
78
Ross
,
J.
Dryden Flight Research Center.
NASA; 2002
.
79
Stolzenberg
,
J.
The Russell attachment and its improved advantages.
Int J Orthod Dent Children
1935
.
9
:
837
840
.
80
Stolzenberg
,
J.
The efficiency of the Russell attachment.
Am J Orthod Oral Surg
1946
.
32
:
572
582
.
81
Craig
,
R. G.
ed
.
Restorative Dental Materials. 6th ed.
St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1980:10, 345, 348–354
.
82
Skinner
,
E. W.
The Science of Dental Materials.
Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 1940:82–90
.
83
Skinner
,
E. W.
The Science of Dental Materials.
Philadelphia, Pa: Saunders; 1954:117–123
.
84
Trommsdorff
,
E.
,
H.
Köhle
, and
P.
Lagally
.
Zur Polymerisation des Methacrylsäure-methylesters.
Makromol Chem
1947
.
1
:
169
198
.
85
Hochheiser
,
S.
Rohm and Haas: History of a Chemical Company.
Philadelphia, Pa: University of Pennsylvania Press; 1986:58–63
.
86
Fenichell
,
S.
Plastic: The Making of a Synthetic Century.
New York, NY: Harper Business; 1996:212–219
.
87
Park
,
J. B.
and
R. S.
Lakes
.
Biomaterials: An Introduction. 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Plenum; 1992:3–4
.
88
Steiner
,
C. C.
Power storage and delivery in orthodontic appliances.
Am J Orthod
1953
.
39
:
859
880
.
89
Proffit
,
W. R.
Contemporary Orthodontics. 3rd ed.
St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 2000:364–366
.
90
Shepard
,
E. E.
Technique and Treatment with the Twin-Wire Appliance.
St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1961:52
.
91
Promotional Literature. SPEED System Brochure
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada: Strite Industries; 1996
.
92
Promotional Literature. ‘A’ Company Orthodontics Catalog
San Diego, Calif: ‘A’ Company; 1996:84
.
93
Promotional Literature. Allure Polysapphire™ Appliances Brochure
Islandia, NY: GAC International; 1993
.
94
Buonocore
,
M. G.
A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces.
J Dent Res
1955
.
34
:
849
853
.
95
Bowen
,
R. L.
Dental filling material comprising vinyl silane treated fused silica and a binder consisting of the reaction product of bis phenol and glycidyl acrylate.
United States Patent Office, patent 3,066,112. November 27, 1962
.
96
Buonocore
,
M.
Adhesive sealing of pits and fissures for caries prevention, with use of ultraviolet light.
J Am Dent Assoc
1970
.
80
:
324
328
.
97
Newman
,
G. V.
Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report.
Am J Orthod
1965
.
51
:
901
912
.
98
Reynolds
,
I. R.
A review of direct orthodontic bonding.
Br J Orthod
1975
.
2
:
171
178
.
99
Kusy
,
R. P.
Basic properties and characteristics of archwires.
Pract Rev Orthod. 1995; February
.
100
Nicolls
,
J.
Friction forces in fixed orthodontic appliances.
Dent Pract
1968
.
18
:
362
366
.
101
Kapila
,
S.
,
P. V.
Angolkar
,
M. G.
Duncanson
, and
R. S.
Nanda
.
Evaluation of friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1990
.
98
:
117
126
.
102
Kusy
,
R. P.
and
J. Q.
Whitley
.
Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials.
Sem Orthod
1997
.
3
:
166
177
.
103
Dobrin
,
R. J.
,
I. L.
Kamel
, and
D. R.
Musich
.
Load-deformation characteristics of polycarbonate orthodontic brackets.
Am J Orthod
1975
.
67
:
24
33
.
104
Buehler
,
W. J.
,
J. V.
Gilfrick
, and
R. C.
Wiley
.
Effects of low temperature phase changes on the mechanical properties of alloys near composition NiTi.
J Appl Phys
1963
.
34
:
1475
1484
.
105
Andreasen
,
G. F.
and
T. B.
Hilleman
.
An evaluation of 55 cobalt substituted Nitinol wire for use in orthodontics.
J Am Dent Assoc
1971
.
82
:
1373
1375
.
106
Kousbroek
,
R.
Shape memory alloys.
In: Ducheyne P, Hastings GW, eds. Metal and Ceramic Biomaterials: Volume II—Strength and Surface. Chapter 3. Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1984:63–90
.
107
Mertmann
,
M.
Processing and quality control of binary NiTi shape memory alloys.
In: Yahia L'H, ed. Shape Memory Implants. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2000:24–25
.
108
Collings
,
E. W.
The Physical Metallurgy of Titanium Alloys.
Metals Park, Ohio: American Society for Metals; 1984:151, 156–160
.
109
Segner
,
D.
and
D.
Ibe
.
Clinical application of shape-memory alloys in orthodontics.
In: Yahia L'H, ed. Shape Memory Implants. Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; 2000:210–211
.
110
Miura
,
F.
,
M.
Mogi
,
Y.
Ohura
, and
H.
Hamanaka
.
The super-elastic property of the Japanese NiTi alloy wire for use in orthodontics.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1986
.
90
:
1
10
.
111
Burstone
,
C. J.
Chinese Ni-Ti wire: a new orthodontic alloy.
Am J Orthod
1985
.
87
:
445
452
.
112
Gil
,
F. J.
and
J. A.
Planell
.
Effect of copper addition on the superelastic behavior of NiTi shape memory alloys for orthodontic applications.
Biomed Mater Res (Appl Biomater)
1999
.
48
:
682
688
.
113
Minshall
,
H.
ed
.
Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. 65th ed.
Boca Raton, Fla: CRC Press; 1984:F–16
.
114
Hanson
,
G. H.
The SPEED system: a report on the development of a new edgewise appliance.
Am J Orthod
1980
.
78
:
243
265
.
115
Berger
,
J. L.
The SPEED appliance: a 14-year update on this unique self-ligating orthodontic mechanism.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1994
.
105
:
217
223
.
116
Brumfield
,
R. C.
Dental Gold Structures—Analysis and Practicalities.
New York, NY: J. F. Jelenko; 1949:145–162
.
117
Kusy
,
R. P.
and
A. R.
Greenberg
.
Comparison of the elastic properties of nickel-titanium and beta titanium archwires.
Am J Orthod
1982
.
82
:
199
205
.
118
Burstone
,
C. J.
Variable-modulus orthodontics.
Am J Orthod
1981
.
80
:
1
16
.
119
Kusy
,
R. P.
On the use of nomograms to determine the elastic property ratios of orthodontic arch wires.
Am J Orthod
1983
.
83
:
374
381
.
120
Rucker
,
B. K.
and
R. P.
Kusy
.
Theoretical investigation of elastic flexural properties for multistranded orthodontic archwires.
J Biomed Mater Res. In press
.
121
Phillips
,
H. W.
The advent of ceramics.
J Clin Orthod
1988
.
22
:
69
70
.
122
Swartz
,
M. L.
Ceramic brackets.
J Clin Orthod
1988
.
22
:
82
88
.
123
Kusy
,
R. P.
Morphology of polycrystalline alumina brackets and its relationship to fracture toughness and strength.
Angle Orthod
1988
.
58
:
197
203
.
124
Saunders
,
C. R.
and
R. P.
Kusy
.
Surface topography and frictional characteristics of ceramic brackets.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1994
.
106
:
76
87
.
125
Keith
,
O.
,
R. P.
Kusy
, and
J. Q.
Whitley
.
Zirconia brackets: an evaluation of morphology and coefficients of friction.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1994
.
106
:
605
614
.
126
Angolkar
,
P. V.
,
S.
Kapila
,
M. G.
Duncanson
, and
R. S.
Nanda
.
Evaluation of friction between ceramic brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1990
.
98
:
499
506
.
127
Kusy
,
R. P.
and
J. Q.
Whitley
.
Coefficients of friction for arch wires in stainless steel and polycrystalline alumina bracket slots. I: the dry state.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1990
.
98
:
300
312
.
128
Ghafari
,
J.
Problems associated with ceramic brackets suggest limiting use to selected teeth.
Angle Orthod
1997
.
62
:
145
152
.
129
Talass
,
M. F.
Case report: Optiflex archwire treatment of a skeletal class III open bite.
J Clin Orthod
1992
.
26
:
245
252
.
130
Talass
,
M. F.
Orthodontic arch wire.
United States Patent Office, patent 4,869,666. Sept. 26, 1989
.
131
Holt
,
M. H.
,
R. S.
Nanda
, and
M. G.
Duncanson
Jr.
.
Fracture resistance of ceramic brackets during archwire torsion.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1991
.
99
:
287
293
.
132
Jeiroudi
,
M. T.
Enamel fracture caused by ceramic brackets.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1991
.
99
:
97
99
.
133
Thilander
,
B. L.
Complications of orthodontic treatment.
Orthod Pedo
1992
.
2
:
28
37
.
134
Douglass
,
J. B.
Enamel wear caused by ceramic brackets.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1989
.
95
:
96
98
.
135
Viazis
,
A. D.
,
R.
DeLong
,
R. R.
Bevis
,
W. H.
Douglas
, and
T. M.
Speidel
.
Enamel surface abrasion from ceramic orthodontic brackets: a special case report.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1989
.
96
:
514
518
.
136
Kusy
,
R. P.
,
J. Q.
Whitley
, and
M. J.
Prewitt
.
Comparison of the frictional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations in the dry and wet states.
Angle Orthod
1991
.
61
:
293
302
.

In part, presented at the American Association Orthodontics 100th Annual Session, the 5th International Orthodontic Congress, and the 2nd Meeting of the World Federation of Orthodontists, which were concurrently held from April 28, 2000, to May 3, 2000, in Chicago, Ill.

Author notes

Corresponding author: Robert P. Kusy, PhD, Department of Orthodontics, Department of Biomedical Engineering, Curriculum in Applied and Materials Science, Dental Research Center, University of North Carolina, DRC Building 210H, CB#7455, Chapel Hill, NC 27599 (rkusy@bme.unc.edu)