Corrosion behavior of 2205 duplex stainless steel

Jeffrey A. Platt, DDS, FAGD, a Andres Guzman, DDS, b Arnaldo Zuccari, MD, DDS, b
David W. Thornburg, PE, c Barbara F. Rhodes, BGS, a Yoshiki Oshida, PhD, a
and B. Keith Moore, PhD a
Indianapolis and LaPorte, Ind.

The corrosion behavior of 2205 duplex stainless steel was compared with that of AISI type 316L
stainless steel. The 2205 stainless steel is a potential orthodontic bracket material with low nickel
content (4 to 6 wt%), whereas the 316L stainless steel (nickel content: 10 to 14 wt%) is a currently
used bracket material. Both stainless steels were subjected to electrochemical and immersion
(crevice) corrosion tests in 37 ° C, 0.9 wt% sodium chloride solution. Electrochemical testing
indicates that 2205 has a longer passivation range than 316L. The corrosion rate of 2205 was
0.416 MPY (milli-inch per year), whereas 316L exhibited 0.647 MPY. When 2205 was coupled to
316L with equal surface area ratio, the corrosion rate of 2205 reduced to 0.260 MPY, indicating
that 316L stainless steel behaved like a sacrificial anode. When 316L is coupled with NiTi, TMA, or
stainless steel arch wire and was subjected to the immersion corrosion test, it was found that 316L
suffered from crevice corrosion. On the other hand, 2205 stainless steel did not show any localized
crevice corrosion, although the surface of 2205 was covered with corrosion products, formed when
coupled to NiTi and stainless steel wires. This study indicates that considering corrosion resistance,
2205 duplex stainless steel is an improved alternative to 316L for orthodontic bracket fabrication
when used in conjunction with titanium, its alloys, or stainless steel arch wires. (Am J Orthod
Dentofac Orthop 1997;112:69-79.)

A u s t e n i t i c stainless steel (e.g., AISI type
316L stainless steel) is the most commonly used
orthodontic bracket material. It typically has a com-
position of 18 weight percent (wt%) chromium, 8
wt% nickel (Ni), 2 to 3 wt% molybdenum, and a low
carbon content. 1 Its mechanical properties, such as
ductility and wear resistance, make it attractive for
this application.
The corrosion resistance and appearance of
stainless steel brackets are relatively good. However,
this material is challenged by the hostile environ-
ment in the mouth, as it is susceptible to localized
corrosion in a low pH environment containing chlo-
rine ions.
Austenitic stainless steel exists as a face-centered
cubic crystalline structure, formed by heating the
alloy above 912° C. 2 To maintain this structure when
cooled, nickel is added to stabilize the austenitic
phase. To minimize the risk of hypersensitivity
reactions from nickel, the corrosion resistance of the
aDental Materials, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Indiana Univer-
sity School of Dentistry.
bprosthodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Indiana University
School of Dentistry.
cTP Orthodontics, Inc.
Reprint requests to: Dr. Yoshiki Oshida, Dental Materials Laboratory,
Indiana University School of Dentistry, 1121 W. Michigan St., Indianap-
olis, IN 46202-5186.
Copyright © 1997 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
0889-5406/97/$5.00 + 0 8/1/75384
stainless steel should be maximized to control the
nickel ion release from the alloy.
It has been reported that up to 21.5% of the
population may exhibit allergic reaction to nickel on
patch testing? Case studies have indicated hyper-
sensitivity reactions to nickel, stimulated by expo-
sure to orthodontic brackets. 4-8 It has also been
shown that the quantity of nickel exposure is critical
if hypersensitivity symptoms are seen. 9
The 2205 stainless steel, a duplex (or dual) phase
stainless steel, is being investigated as a material for
orthodontic bracket fabrication. Microstructure of
the duplex stainless steels is a mixture of austenitic
and delta-ferritic phases. TM The delta-ferrite is hard
and relatively less ductile. Austenite is softer and
more ductile. The combination of these phases
results in steel harder than the single-phase aus-
tenitic stainless steel (316L) and more ductile than
single-phase ferritic stainless steel (430). The auste-
nitic structure exhibits corrosion resistance because
both chromium and molybdenum are soluble in the
matrix. Chromium adds to the overall resistance
through a passivation process by forming a complex
spinel-type passive film, (Fe,Ni)O(Fe,Cr)203 .11 Mo-
lybdenum increases the ability of stainless steel to
resist the localized corrosion including pitting and
crevice corrosion, particularly in environments con-
taining chloride ion. 12
The duplex stainless steels contain much less
69
70 Platt et aL American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
July 1997

• , T M A wire
"l'i Ni wire
SS wire

1 block, 3 1 6 L SS

t f ~7~ 2 2 0 5 SS

/
/ J
/ Fig. 2. Immersion test sample couple for crevice cor-
rosion.

i Table I. Chemical composition of a dual-phase 2205 stainless

steel and a single-base 316L stainless steel 13

Element 2205 (%) 316L(%)

~316L
C 0.03 maximum 0.03 maximum
$.$. "~ k 2205 [ Ni 4-6 10-14
S.S. Cr 31-23 16-18

1 Mo
Mn
S
3-3
2
0.03
2-3
2
0.03
Fe balance balance
Fig. 1. Sample configuration of coupled test sample.

nickel than austenitic stainless steels, as seen in
Table I. 13 If the corrosion resistance of the duplex
stainless steel is equal to or better than the aus-
tenitic stainless steel, the risk of nickel hypersensi-
tivity should be reduced. The use of duplex stainless
steels in other industries in highly corrosive environ-
ments would suggest that the corrosion resistance of
these materials is good.
The purpose of this study is to compare the
corrosion behavior of 2205 stainless steel with that of
316L stainless steel through electrochemical polariza-
tion studies and immersion crevice corrosion tests.
mens (approximately 5 × 5 × 12 mm) were cast in a
"Christmas tree" pattern and separated with separating
disks and air coolant. Mechanical polishing was per-
formed with wet SiC papers up to grit No. 800. After
mechanical polishing, any samples with casting defects
evident on the surface were eliminated from the study.
D e n s i t y ( g / c m 3) of each polished sample was calculated
and, if the calculated specific density was less than 99% of
the averaged value, the sample was also eliminated from
the study. The averaged value of density of 316L stainless
steel was 7.949 -+ 0.076 g/cm3; whereas that for 2205
stainless steel was 7.953 -+ 0.068 g/cm3.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Microstructural Observation

Materials After additional polishing with a suspension of 0.05
All specimens of 316L and 2205 stainless steel used in ~m alumina, one surface of each material was chemically
this study were supplied by TP Orthodontics, Inc. Speci- etched with "aqua regia" at room temperature for 5
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Platt et aL 71
Volume 112, No. 1

2205 in NaCI (0.9%) N 2 saturated

0.2

• run 1
~A
• run 2
0.0

O
>
• /
E~or, (run I) *, /
. -0.2 /
13-
~c
E,o= (run 2)

= ==
-0.4

10-5 104 10-3 1 0 -2

Log current density mA/cm z

Fig. 3. Tafel slopes of polarization curves of Fig. 4.

2205 in NaCl (0.9%) N 2 s a t u r a t e d

2.0

1.8 -- • run#1
1.6-
• run #2
1.4-

1.2-
LU
o 1.0-

_> 0 . 8 -

c 0.6-
0
o. 0 . 4 -

0.2-

0.0-

-0.2 • •

-0.4
I I I I I I I

10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10 o 101 102

Log current density mA/cm z

Fig. 4. Polarization curves of uncoupled 2205 stainless steel.

72 Platt et al.
2205 type stainlesssteel
316L type stainlesssteel
Fig. 5. Optical microstructures.
seconds. The microstructure was photographed at a mag-
nification of 250X, with an optical microscope.
Corrosion Tests
Electrochemical corrosion tests--uncoupled." Two sam-
ples of mechanically polished 2205 stainless steel and two
of 316L stainless steel were subjected to potentiodynamic
polarization tests in a 0.9 wt% NaC1 solution, nitrogen
purged, at 37 ° C, to simulate the oral environment. 14 A
scanning speed of 1 mV/second, over a potential range of
-400 to 1500 mV for 2205 and -700 to 1200 mV for 316L
stainless steel was used. The resulting data curves were
plotted as corrosion potential in V referenced to a SCE
(saturated calomel electrode) versus log current density
(mA/cm2).
Electrochemical corrosion tests--coupled: If two dis-
similar metals are in contact with each other, the more
noble material will behave in a cathodic (noble)) 5 When
a 2205 orthodontic bracket is combined with orthodontic
arch wire, there is the possibility of a galvanic (dissimilar
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
July 1997
metal) reaction when the couple is exposed to the oral
environment. To form a corrosion couple, the rear sur-
faces of 2205 and 316L stainless steel samples were joined
by spot-welding a thin sheet of 316L between them. This
spot-welded couple was embedded into epoxy resin in
such a way that polished surfaces of each material were
exposed to the electrolyte, but the spot welded contact
was entirely covered by resin (Fig. 1).
An important factor in galvanic corrosion is effect of
the ratio of the cathodic and anodic areas. An unfavorable
area ratio consists of a large cathode and a small anode.
For a given current flow in the galvanic cell, a smaller
anode results in a greater current density and hence a
greater corrosion rate. a5 On the basis of the results of
individual polarization curves of uncoupled 2205 and
316L, it was found that 2205 material behaves cathodic
with respect to 316L. To study the surface area effect of a
2205/316L couple, three different ratios of surface areas
between 2205 and 316L stainless steels were tested: (1) 1:1
(i.e., both materials had equal exposure area), (2) 1:0.5
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Platt et aL 73
Volume 112, No. 1

316L in 0.9%NaCI saturated with N 2

,2

1.0
run 1
0.8 _ r

0.6

0.4
>
~ .2

~_ 0.0

-0.2 •

-0.4 , • .

m
-0.6
I I I ~ I I I
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10 0 101 10 2

Log current density mA/cm 2

Fig. 6. Polarization curves of uncoupled 316L stainless steel.

22051316L, No Mask,
in NaCI (0.9%) N 2 saturated

1.4

1.2 = run 3
• run 4
1.0 • run 5
• run 6
0.8
LU
(D
0.6
>
.m 0.4

"6 0.2
0.

0.0

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6 I I I I ~ I I I I I

10 .5 10-4 10-3 10.2 10-1 100 101 102 103

Log current density mA/cm z

Fig. 7. Polarization curves of coupled sample with equal surface area.

74 Platt et al. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
July 1997

2205/316L, No Mask,
in NaCI (0.9%) N2 saturated

-0.2

-0.3
•
•
run
run 5
1
43 L
.

* run 6 •

LU • •A ~&
L~
o9
> •0 • • •• •

-0.4 • 0 • • •
.1..,
t-

O
O.

-0.5

"..
• • • A"••
% •. %
-0.6 J t i illtj J i i ==ll I i i J p ~lll I I i =

10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2

Log current density mA/cm 2

Fig. 8. Tafel slopes of polarization curves of Fig. 7.

T a b l e II. C o r r o s i o n r a t e s (i.e., half of 316L stainless steel was masked), and (3)
1:0.25 (i.e., three quarters of 316L stainless steel was
Icorr Corrosion Figure
Maten (vJl/cm2) rate (MPY) no.
masked), as seen in Fig. 2. Masking was accomplished
with plastic tape. The corrosion potential was monitored
2205 run i 0.8 0.370 5, 6 and recorded. Then the coupled samples were subjected
run 2 1.0 0.462 5, 6 to scanning polarization testing in the same manner as the
Average 0.416 +- 0.065
uncoupled samples.
316L run 1 1.5 0.693 7 Estimation of corrosion rates: Referring to Fig. 3,
run 2 1.3 0.601 7
Average 0.647 --- 0.065
which is enlarged from the cathodic and anodic polariza-
tion portions of Fig. 4, the corrosion current, I ..... is
2205/316L run 3 0.45 0.208 10, 11
(1:1) run 4 0.55 0.254 10, 11 related to the slope of the plot through the following
run 5 0.50 0.231 10, 11 equation16:
run 6 0.75 0.346 10, 11
Average 0.260 ± 0.060
I .... = [3a[3C/{2"3([3A + [3C)} × 8E/8I (1)
2205/316L run 1 1.5 0.693 12
(1:0.25) run 2 0.9 0.416 12
run 3 1.0 0.462 12 where gE/gI is slope of the polarization resistance plot,
Average 0.524 -+ 0.148 13A, 13c is anodic and cathodic Tafel constants, and Ico,~ is
2205/316L run 1 0.9 0.416 13 corrosion current 0xA).
(1:0.5) run 2 1.2 0.554 13 The corrosion current, I ..... can be obtained graphi-
run 3 1.5 0.693 13
cally as seen in Fig. 2 by finding an intersecting point of [~a
Average 0.554 -- 0.139
and [3c slopes. The corrosion current can be related
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Platt et al. 75
Volume 112,No. 1

22051316L,314 MASK,
in NaCl (0.9%) Nasaturated

1.4

1.2 -- o run 1
run 2
1.0 --
run 3

0.8 --

UJ
oog 0 . 6 -
>
._~ 0 . 4 -
C

0.2-

0,0 --

-0.2 -
z~

-0.4 - o o [] o ~t,~

o ~~;~
-0.6 I I
10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 100 101 102 103

Log current density mA/cm =

Fig. 9. Polarization curves of coupled sample when 3/4 of 316L surface was masked.

directly to the corrosion rate through the following equa-
tion,
corrosion rate (MPY) = 0.13 X Ico~ x E.W./d
where M P Y is milli-inches per year, E.W. is equivalent
weight of the corroding species (g), which is equivalent t o
the atomic weight of the corroding element divided by the
valence of the element, d is density of the corroding
element (g/cm3), and I .... equals corrosion current density
(~A/cm2).
Immersion crevice corrosion tests. Twelve blocks of
316L and 2205 were polished on all sides. As seen in Fig.
2, three types of arch wires were sandwiched between
pairs of 316L and 2205 blocks: titanium-molybdenum
(TMA), stainless steel (SS), and titanium-nickel (NiTi).
Two assemblies were prepared for each stainless steel and
each type of arch wire. The assemblies were held together
by plastic clips and suspended in 0.9 wt% NaC1 solution at
37° C for 5 weeks.
Each specimen was examined for the presence of
visible general corrosion and examined under a stereop-
tical microscope for evidence of crevice corrosion, a
process that causes severe localized corrosion readily
visible at 40X magnification.
This test was repeated twice, resulting in four mea-
(2) surements for each combination of two bracket materials
(2205, 316L) and three arch wires (TMA, SS, NiTi).
Corrosion product analysis. To identify the crystalline
structures, corrosion products were collected and sub-
jected to transmission electron diffraction (TED), because
the amount of collected corrosion product was not large
enough to conduct x-ray powder diffraction.
The acceleration voltage was held constant at 100 kV.
The d-spacings of the corrosion product were calculated
from the diameter of the diffraction rings. 14
RESULTS
Microstructural Observation
Optical microstructures confirmed the mixed
structure of the duplex stainless steel (2205) as
c o m p a r e d with the austenitic single-phase 316L, as
seen in Fig. 5. In 2205, delta-ferrite (marked pools)
is precipitated in the primary gamma-austenitic ma-
76 PIatt et aL American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
July 1 9 9 7

22051316L,1/2 MASK
in NaCl (0.9%) N2saturated

1.4

1.2
o run 1
1.0 o run 2
run 3
0.8
UJ
o
O9 0.6
>
-~ 0.4

0.2

0.0
/x

oo
-0.2 °O ¢Zx
O
0 O
-0.4 []

-0.6 I t I F I I I I I

10 -6 10-5 10-4 10-3 10-2 10-1 10 0 101 10 2 10 3

Log current density mA/cmz

Fig. 10. Polarization curves of coupled sample when half of 316L surface was m a s k e d .

trix. In 316L, carbide (i.e., Cr23C3)is precipitated in
the single gamma-austenitic matrix phase.
Corrosion Product Analysis
Before estimation of corrosion rate, the term
E.W. (equivalent weight) in the equation (2) must be
known. To do so, the corrosion product must be
identified. The corrosion products collected from both
steels were reddish brown and had the same electron
diffraction patterns. All diffraction lines were identified
as belonging to FeO(OH). 17This result is expected for
Fe-based alloys subjected to a relatively mild aqueous
corrosive environment. Hence the value of E.W. =
M/n = 55.85/2 = 27.93 (g), and density of iron, d, =
7.86 g/cm3.
Electrochemical corrosion test--uncoupled. Figs.
4 and 6 show the polarization curves of 2205 and
316L, respectively. It was found that (1) cathodic
and anodic polarization behaviors of both steels
are very similar to each other up to the current
density of 0.1 mA/cm 2 (at about 400 mV), and (2)
beyond this point, 316L stainless steel showed
earlier transpassivation than 2205 stainless steel,
although a clear passivation stage was not identi-
fied in either steel. In the transpassivation regime,
the oxide (passive) film starts to dissolve, indicat-
ing that the metal substrate is no longer protected
from the environment by the passive film. To find
the corrosion current (Icorr), the cathodic to an-
odic transition was replotted, as seen in Fig. 2 for
2205 steel. The calculated corrosion rates in milli-
inches per year (MPY) are listed in Table II. It
was found that the corrosion rate of 2205 was
0.416 +_ 0.065 MPY, which is superior to 0.647 +_
0.065 MPY for 316L.
Electrochemical corrosion test--coupled. 1.
Equal surface area ratio of 2205/316L couple: Figs.
7 and 8 show polarization curves of a 2205/316L
couple having an equal surface area ratio. Referring
to Fig. 8, it was noticed that the anodic Tafel slope,
[31, is larger than the cathodic slope, [3c, suggesting
that the corrosion process is controlled by the
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics P l a t t et al. 77
Volume 112, No. 1

Table III. R e s u l t s of c o u p l i n g c o r r o s i o n tests

Material General corrosion Crevice corrosion

Block l~ ire Block 1 Block 2 Wire Block 1 Block 2

316L TiNi 1 1 1 -- --

1 1
2 2 1 -- --

2 2 1 -- --

316L TMA 1 1 1 + +
0 0 1 -- --

2 2 1 -- --

0 0 1 + +
316L SS 2 2 2 + +
2 2 2 + +
1 l 1 - +
1 1 1 +
2205 TiNi 1 1 1 -- --

0 0 0 -- --

l 1 l -- --

0 0 0 -- --

2205 TMA 0 0 0 -- --

0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 -- --

2205 SS 1 0 1 -- --

0 0 0 -- --

0 1 1 -- --

l 0 1

For general corrosion:

0: no corrosion observed.
1: corrosion evident in isolated areas.
2: corrosion evident in multiple areas.
For crevice corrosion:
- : no crevice corrosion.
+: crevice corrosion present.

anodic reaction. A precipitated film is formed on

anodic areas because of the anode control type
polarization. 18
As seen in Table II, for the coupled data with
equal areas, the calculated values of corrosion rate
for runs 3 through 6 agreed well. The corrosion rate
of 0.260 __ 0.060 MPY for 2205 in the 2205/316L
couple was much less than 0.416 _+ 0.065 MPY for Fig. 11. General view of crevice corrosion tested sam-
uncoupled 2205. It is suggested that the less noble ples.
316L stainless steel serve as a sacrificial anode to
protect the 2205 stainless steel.
2. Unequal surface area ratio of 2205/316L cou- the surface area effect.15 One of the possible reasons
ple: Fig. 9 shows polarization curves of 2205/316L for this might be the fact that the surface of the 316L
couples when the surface area ratio is 1:0.25; stainless steel at the edge of the masking tape was
whereas Fig. 10 represents polarization curves of cou- severely attacked by localized crevice corrosion. Con-
ples when the surface area ratio is 1:0.5. The results of sequently, a majority of corrosion current was concen-
calculated corrosion rates are also listed in Table II. It trated on these crevice corrosion sites rather than
was found that there is no significant difference in distributed over the uncovered surface.
corrosion rates for both unequal surface area ratios
(i.e., 0.524 _+ 0.148 MPY for surface area ratio of Immersion Crevice Corrosion Test
1:0.25 and 0.554 +_ 0.139 MPY for 1:0.5). This finding Fig. 11 shows typical general views of crevice
does not agree with the generally accepted concept of corrosion test couples with wires. After dissembling
78 Platt et aL
area covered with wire
Fig. 12. Crevice corrosion on 316L stainless steel, as
marked on Fig. 11.
the test couples, the extent of general corrosion was
evaluated and scored in three ranks, as indicated in
Table III. The 2205 stainless steel exhibited better
corrosion resistance in the immersion corrosion
tests. After sampling the corrosion products, both
surfaces and wires were cleaned with alcohol and
distilled water. It was found that the surface of 2205
was contaminated with corrosion products formed
from the wire materials, with little evidence of
corrosion of the 2205. Then the surfaces were
examined for crevice corrosion. Fig. 12 was taken
from the area marked with an arrow mark on Fig.
11. Fig. 12 shows crevice corrosion of 316L on areas
where the arch wire was in contact. Intense localized
corrosion frequently occurs within crevices and
other shielded areas on metal surfaces exposed to
corrosives. This type of attack is usually associated
with small volumes of stagnant solution caused by
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
July 1997
holes, gasket surfaces, lap joints, surface deposits,
and crevices under bolt and rivet headsJ 5 It is
believed that crevice corrosion results from differ-
ences in metal ion or oxygen concentration between
the crevice and its surroundings. Under the deposit
area, oxygen depletion takes place. After oxygen is
depleted, no further oxygen reduction occurs, al-
though the dissolution of metal continues. This
tends to produce an excess of positive charge in the
solution that is balanced by the migration of chlo-
ride ions into the crevice. This results in an in-
creased concentration of metal chloride with a pH
value as low as 3 to 4 within the crevice. As the
corrosion within the crevice increases, the rate of
oxygen reduction on adjacent surfaces increases.
This cathodically protects the external surfaces.
Thus during crevice corrosion, the attack is localized
within shielded areas, while the remaining surface
suffers little or no damage. 15
The right column of Table III shows the results
of crevice corrosion with " - " and " + " notations.
None of the 2205 samples exhibit crevice corrosion,
whereas the 316L specimens did, as seen in Fig. 12.
DISCUSSION
The use of 2205 duplex stainless steel in place of
316L appears to result in lower corrosion in a
simulated oral environment. However, a corrosion
couple alloy may dramatically decrease this benefit.
In particular, NiTi in contact with 2205 produces a
reduction in corrosion resistance.
The results of the uncoupled electrochemical
corrosion tests are consistent with previous findings.
Cigada performed electrochemical corrosion tests
on several stainless steel wires containing Cr, Ni,
and Mo in physiologic solutions at 40° C. 19 Duplex
stainless Steel exhibited a passivation range from
-200 to 650 mV, results very similar to those ob-
tained in the current study.
As seen clearly in Fig. 7, the 316L stainless steel
did not show a clear passivation under the current
testing conditions and it is obvious that 2205 stain-
less steel exhibits much better corrosion resistance
against 37° C, 0.9 wt% NaCI aqueous solution.
If two dissimilar materials are in electrical con-
tact, the materials should behave differently than
when they were exposed to corrosion media sepa-
rately. It is also generally believed that the magni-
tude of this galvanic corrosion depends on the ratio
of exposed surface area of the two materials. Hence,
tests in this study were designed to simulate the
exposed surface areas in contact when an arch wire
lies in the slot of an orthodontic bracket.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Platt et al. 79
Volume 112, No. 1

CONCLUSIONS 4. Romaguera C, Vilaplana J, Grimait F. Contact stomatitis from a dental prothesis.

Our findings indicate that (1) 2205 stainless steel
exhibits better corrosion resistance than 316L stainless
steel; (2) when 2205 is coupled with a less corrosion
resistant material (316L stainless steel), 2205 stainless
steel shows decreases corrosion; and (3) this trend is
reduced when the exposed surface areas have a anodic/
cathodic ratio less than 1 and that 2205, unlike 316L, is not
subject to crevice corrosion.
From the standpoint of corrosion resistance, the use
of 2205 as an orthodontic bracket material seems to be
justified when the arch wire material is stainless steel or
titanium. Use of this alloy could decrease the amount of
corrosion products to which a patient would be exposed
that could minimize nickel allergy problems potentially
associated with orthodontic treatment.
REFERENCES
1. Grimsdottir MR, Gjedet NR, Hensten-Pettersen A. Composition and in vitro corro-
sion of orthodontic appliances. Am J OrthQd Dentofae Orthop 1992;101:525-32.
2. Van Vlack LH. Elements of materials science and engineering. 6th ed. Reading
(MA): Addison-Wesley;1989.
3. Schubert H, Prater E. Nickel dermatitis--a follow-up study. Br J Dermatol
1987;117:(Suppl 32)43.
Contact Dermatitis 1989;21:204.
5. Espana A, Alonso ML, Sofia C, Guimaraens D, Ledo A. Chronic urticaria after
implantation of 2 nickel-containing dental prothesis in a nickel-allergic patient.
Contact Dermatitis 1989;21:204-6.
6. Wilson AG, Gould DJ. Nickel dermatitis from a dental prothesis without buccal
involvement. Contact Dermatitis 1989;21:53-6.
7. Van Joost T, Roesyanto-Mahadi ID. Combined sensitization to palladium and
nickel. Contact Dermatitis 1990;22:227-8.
8. Greppi AL, Smith De, Woodside DG. Nickel hypersensitivity reactions in ortho-
dontic patients. Uni Tor Dent J 1989;3:11-4.
9. Velen NK, Hattel T, Justesen O, Norholm A. Dietary treatment of nickel
dermatitis. Acta Derm Venerol 1985;65:138-41.
10. Lula RA. Stainless steel. Metals Park (OH): American Society for Metais;1986:
71-2.
11. Nakayama T, Oshida Y. Identification of the initial oxide films on 18-8 stainless
steel in high temperature water. Corrosion 1968;21:336-7.
12. Uhlig HH. The corrosion handbook. 9th ed. New York: John Wiley;1966:i50-
74.
13. Lula RA. Stainless steel. Metals Park (OH): American Society for Metals;1986:
74.
14. Oshida Y, Sachdeva R, Miyazaki S. Microanalyticai characterization and surface
modification of TiNi orthodontic archwires. Biomed Mater Eng 1992;2:51-69.
15. Fontana MG, Greene ND. Corrosion engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill;1967:
28-48.
16. Conway BE. Theory and principles of electrode process. New York: Ronald Press
(2o.;1965:101-25.
17. American Society for Testing and Materials. X-ray powder data file, No.26-792:
1960.
18. Tomashov ND. Theory of corrosion and protection of metals. New York: MacMil-
lan;1966:228-48.
19. Cigada A, Rondelli G, Vicentini B, Giaasmazzi M, Roos A. Duplex stainless steels
for osteosynthesis devices. J Biomed Mater Res 1989;23:1087-95.

AAO MEETING CALENDAR

1998 - - Dallas, Texas, May 16 to 20, Dallas Convention Center
1999 - - San Diego, Calif., May 15 to 19, San Diego Convention Center
2000 - - Chicago, II1., April 29 to May 3, McCormick Place Convention Center
(5th IOC and 2nd Meeting of WFO)
2001 - - Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 5 to 9, Toronto Convention Center
2002 - - Baltimore, Md., April 20 to 24, Baltimore Convention Center
2003 - - Hawaiian Islands, May 2 to 9, Hawaii Convention Center
2004 - - Orlando, Fla., May 1 to 5, Orlando Convention Center