Impact of Intraoral Use and Cleaning Methods on the Performance of Stainless-steel Orthodontic Archwires: A Clinical Ex-vivo Study

Aim This study aimed to evaluate the effects of intraoral use and two cleaning methods on debris accumulation, surface roughness (SR), and friction force of two brands of stainless steel (SS) archwires, 3B Ortho and American Orthodontics (AO), after 8 weeks of intraoral exposure. Material and Methods The sample consisted of 288 SS orthodontic archwire sections (0.019” × 0.025”), equally divided between AO and 3B brands. It included an as-received control group (n = 72) and a retrieved group from 54 patients after 8 weeks of use (n = 216). The retrieved wires were further categorized into cleaning method groups: non-cleaning, alcohol-soaked gauze (A-gauze), and acetone-soaked gauze (Ac-gauze). Debris was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy, SR was measured with a Talysurf-i60 profilometer, and frictional forces were assessed using a universal testing machine. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare the effects of different cleaning methods on SS archwires and between the two brands of SS archwires. A significance level of p < 0.05 was used. Results The retrieved group had the highest median debris score of 4, whereas the as-received group recorded a score of 0. Alcohol-soaked and acetone-soaked gauzes yielded decreased debris scores of 1. For SR, the retrieved group had a mean of 0.533 compared with the A-gauze group (0.047). In terms of frictional forces, the retrieved group had an average force of 4.74, and the A-gauze and Ac-gauze groups averaged 2.58 and 3.8, respectively. No significant differences in debris levels were found between brands, but the 3B brand had significantly higher SR (mean = 0.24) than the AO brand (mean = 0.17, p < 0.001). Discussion Intraoral aging significantly increased debris, SR, and friction in stainless steel archwires. A-gauze and Ac-gauze cleaning methods effectively reduced these parameters, with A-gauze demonstrating superior efficacy, especially for the 3B brand. Despite no brand differences in debris or friction, routine chairside cleaning is critical to maintaining archwire performance. Ac-gauze is a viable alternative for debris removal when alcohol is unavailable. Conclusion The retrieved SS archwires exhibited increased debris, SR, and friction after 8 weeks of intraoral use. Both A-gauze and Ac-gauze cleaning methods effectively reduced debris and friction, with A-gauze showing greater overall efficacy, particularly for the 3B brand, which demonstrated higher SR compared to AO.