Effects of Hybrid Copper Oxide-Silver and Titanium Dioxide-Silver Nanocoatings on the Surface Roughness and Friction of Stainless Steel Orthodontic Brackets: A Comparative In Vitro Study
- 1Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Narayana Dental College and Hospital, Nellore, IND
- 2Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Care Dental College, Guntur, IND
Abstract
Introduction
Nanoparticle coatings on orthodontic brackets have antibacterial potential but may alter surface roughness and friction at the bracket-archwire interface. This study compared the surface roughness and static frictional resistance of stainless steel brackets coated with silver-impregnated copper oxide (CuO+Ag) or silver-impregnated titanium dioxide (TiO₂+Ag) nanoparticles with those of uncoated brackets.
Materials and methods
Thirty stainless steel maxillary central incisor brackets (0.022-inch slot) were allocated into three groups (n = 10 each): uncoated control, CuO+Ag-coated, and TiO₂+Ag-coated. Arithmetic average roughness (Ra), root mean square roughness (Rq), and maximum peak-to-valley height (Rz) were measured by atomic force microscopy as received (T0), after coating (T1), and after friction testing (T2). Static friction was measured using a universal testing machine with a 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire in artificial saliva. Data were analyzed using one-way or Welch analysis of variance with post hoc tests and paired t-tests (p < 0.05).
Results
Baseline roughness was comparable among the groups. At T1, CuO+Ag increased Ra, Rq, and Rz, whereas TiO₂+Ag increased Ra and Rq but decreased Rz (paired t-test, |t(9)| ≥ 10.82, p < 0.001). Static friction differed among the groups (F(2, 27) = 9.15, p < 0.001, η² = 0.404). CuO+Ag showed the lowest friction (36.31 ± 3.90 gf), significantly lower than the control (41.65 ± 4.77 gf; q = 3.82, p = 0.031) and TiO₂+Ag (44.65 ± 4.53 gf; q = 5.97, p < 0.001), whereas TiO₂+Ag did not differ from the control (q = 2.15, p = 0.298). Roughness increased in all groups after friction testing (t(9) ≥ 33.48, p < 0.001), with smaller increases in the coated groups.
Conclusions
Both nanocoatings altered bracket surface roughness. CuO+Ag significantly reduced static frictional resistance and appears promising for further investigation as an orthodontic bracket coating.
Related
- Surface Roughness as a Determinant of the Immunological Tissue Response to Additively Manufactured Titanium Implants
- Effect of Surface Roughness and Polyelectrolyte Multilayer Coatings on the In Vitro Cytocompatibility of Additively Manufactured Titanium Implants
- Comparative analysis of metal concentrations in respirable particles and nanoparticulate matter (NPM) from mild steel, aluminum, and stainless steel welding fumes
- Comparative clinical performance of stainless steel crowns placed using conventional, hall, and modified Hall techniques in carious primary molars: A three-arm parallel-group randomized controlled trial
- Evaluation of the effects of Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation on enamel demineralization and orthodontic shear bond strength: an in vitro comparative study with topical fluoride
BibTeX
@article{alekhya2026effects,
title = {{Effects of Hybrid Copper Oxide-Silver and Titanium Dioxide-Silver Nanocoatings on the Surface Roughness and Friction of Stainless Steel Orthodontic Brackets: A Comparative In Vitro Study}},
author = {Devireddy Alekhya and Panaka Padma Prathyusha and Greeshma M Harini and Perala Johnson and Uday Kumar Digumarthi and Ganugapanta Vivek Reddy and Gowri Sankar Singaraju and Prasad Mandava},
journal = {Cureus},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.7759/cureus.118793},
url = {https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13722358},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Effects of Hybrid Copper Oxide-Silver and Titanium Dioxide-Silver Nanocoatings on the Surface Roughness and Friction of Stainless Steel Orthodontic Brackets: A Comparative In Vitro Study
AU - Devireddy Alekhya
AU - Panaka Padma Prathyusha
AU - Greeshma M Harini
AU - Perala Johnson
AU - Uday Kumar Digumarthi
AU - Ganugapanta Vivek Reddy
AU - Gowri Sankar Singaraju
AU - Prasad Mandava
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/29
JO - Cureus
DO - 10.7759/cureus.118793
UR - https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC13722358
AB - Introduction Nanoparticle coatings on orthodontic brackets have antibacterial potential but may alter surface roughness and friction at the bracket-archwire interface. This study compared the surface roughness and static frictional resistance of stainless steel brackets coated with silver-impregnated copper oxide (CuO+Ag) or silver-impregnated titanium dioxide (TiO₂+Ag) nanoparticles with those of uncoated brackets. Materials and methods Thirty stainless steel maxillary central incisor brackets (0.022-inch slot) were allocated into three groups (n = 10 each): uncoated control, CuO+Ag-coated, and TiO₂+Ag-coated. Arithmetic average roughness (Ra), root mean square roughness (Rq), and maximum peak-to-valley height (Rz) were measured by atomic force microscopy as received (T0), after coating (T1), and after friction testing (T2). Static friction was measured using a universal testing machine with a 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire in artificial saliva. Data were analyzed using one-way or Welch analysis of variance with post hoc tests and paired t-tests (p < 0.05). Results Baseline roughness was comparable among the groups. At T1, CuO+Ag increased Ra, Rq, and Rz, whereas TiO₂+Ag increased Ra and Rq but decreased Rz (paired t-test, |t(9)| ≥ 10.82, p < 0.001). Static friction differed among the groups (F(2, 27) = 9.15, p < 0.001, η² = 0.404). CuO+Ag showed the lowest friction (36.31 ± 3.90 gf), significantly lower than the control (41.65 ± 4.77 gf; q = 3.82, p = 0.031) and TiO₂+Ag (44.65 ± 4.53 gf; q = 5.97, p < 0.001), whereas TiO₂+Ag did not differ from the control (q = 2.15, p = 0.298). Roughness increased in all groups after friction testing (t(9) ≥ 33.48, p < 0.001), with smaller increases in the coated groups. Conclusions Both nanocoatings altered bracket surface roughness. CuO+Ag significantly reduced static frictional resistance and appears promising for further investigation as an orthodontic bracket coating.
SN - 2168-8184
ER -