Article

Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model.

Department of Oral Sciences, University G D'Annunzio, Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy.
The Angle Orthodontist (Impact Factor: 1.28). 12/2005; 75(6):1041-5. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[1041:FOCASB]2.0.CO;2
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The friction generated by various bracket-archwire combinations previously has been studied using in vitro testing models that included only one or three brackets. This study was performed using a specially designed apparatus that included 10 aligned brackets to compare the frictional resistance generated by conventional stainless steel brackets, self-ligating Damon SL II brackets and Time Plus brackets coupled with stainless steel, nickel-titanium and beta-titanium archwires. All brackets had a 0.022-inch slot, and five different sizes of orthodontic wire alloys used. Each bracket-archwire combination was tested 10 times, and each test was performed with a new bracket-wire sample. Time Plus self-ligating brackets generated significantly lower friction than both the Damon SL II self-ligating brackets and Victory brackets. However, the analysis of the various bracket-archwire combinations showed that Damon SL II brackets generated significantly lower friction than the other brackets when tested with round wires and significantly higher friction than Time Plus when tested with rectangular archwires. Beta-titanium archwires generated higher frictional resistances than the other archwires. All brackets showed higher frictional forces as the wire size increased. These findings suggest that the use of an in vitro testing model that includes 10 brackets can give additional interesting information about the frictional force of the various bracket-archwires combinations to the clinician and the research worker.

3 Followers
 · 
322 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to compare frictional forces between monocrystalline alumina (MA), polycrystalline alumina (PA), and stainless steel (SS) brackets with two SS wires: Rectangular and round. In this in vitro study, 60 0.022 brackets [20 PA (0° torque, Forestadent, Germany) and 20 MA (0° torque, Ormco, California, USA)] brackets plus 20 SS brackets (0° torque, Foretadent, Germany) and 60 SS archwires (30 rectangular 0.019 ×0.025 archwires and 30 round 0.018 archwires, Ortho Technology, USA) were used in subgroups of 10 from the combination of all brackets and all archwires. A universal testing machine (Instron, Model STM 250, Germany) was used to investigate the static frictional resistance. The angulation between the bracket and wire was 0°, and the wires were pulled through the slots at a crosshead speed of 10 mm/min. Two-way and one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey tests were used to analyze the data. Mean (SD) static frictional force for each group was as follows: MA + round: 3.47 (0.38); MA + rectangular: 4.05 (0.47); PA + round: 4.14 (0.37); PA + rectangular: 4.45 (0.65); SS + round: 3.28 (0.22); and SS + rectangular: 4.22 (0.61). Significant effects of bracket types (P = 0.001) and archwire types (P = 0.000) on the friction force were detected using ANOVA. Tukey test indicated significant differences between PA brackets with both SS and MA brackets (P < 0.05), but not between SS and MA brackets. The two archwires as well had significantly different effects (Tukey P = 0.000). Based on the present in-vitro study, the PA brackets might create higher frictional forces compared to both SS and MA brackets. The rectangular 0.019 ×0.025 archwire might create greater forces than round 0.018 archwire.
    04/2015; 4(2). DOI:10.4103/2278-0203.156028
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Our objective was to investigate the effect of archwire cross-section increases on the levels of force applied to teeth during complex malalignment correction with various archwire-bracket combinations using an experimental biomechanical setup. The study comprised 3 types of orthodontic brackets: (1) conventional ligating brackets (Victory Series [3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif] and Mini-Taurus [Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, Colo]), (2) self-ligating brackets (SmartClip, a passive self-ligating bracket [3M Unitek]; and Time3 [Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, Colo] and SPEED [Strite Industries, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada], both active self-ligating brackets), and (3) a conventional low-friction bracket (Synergy [Rocky Mountain Orthodontics]). All brackets had a nominal 0.022-in slot size. The brackets were combined with 0.014-in and 0.016-in titanium memory wires, Therma-Ti archwires (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis). The archwires were tied to the conventional brackets with both stainless steel ligatures of size 0.010-in and elastomeric rings. A malocclusion of the maxillary central incisor displaced 2 mm gingivally (x-axis) and 2 mm labially (z-axis) was simulated. The forces recorded when using the 0.014-in archwires ranged from 1.7 ± 0.1 to 5.0 ± 0.3 N in the x-axis direction, and from 1.2 ± 0.1 to 5.5 ± 0.3 N in the z-axis direction. When we used the 0.016-in archwires, the forces ranged from 2.6 ± 0.1 to 6.0 ± 0.3 N in the x-axis direction, and from 2.0 ± 0.2 to 6.0 ± 0.4 N in the z-axis direction. Overall, the increases ranged from 16.0% to 120.0% in the x-axis and from 10.4% to 130.0% in the z-axis directions. Increasing the cross section of the wire increased the force level invariably with all brackets. Wires of size 0.014 in produced relatively high force levels, and the force level increased with 0.016-in wires. Copyright © 2015 American Association of Orthodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 04/2015; 147(4 Suppl). DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.024 · 1.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study aimed to compare the frictional force (FR) in self-ligating brackets among different bracket-archwire angles, bracket materials, and archwire types. Passive and active metal self-ligating brackets and active ceramic self-ligating brackets were included as experimental groups, while conventional twin metal brackets served as a control group. All brackets were maxillary premolar brackets with 0.022 inch [in] slots and a -7° torque. The orthodontic wires used included 0.018 round and 0.019 × 0.025 in rectangular stainless steel wires. The FR was measured at 0°, 5°, and 10° angulations as the wire was drawn through the bracket slots after attaching brackets from each group to the universal testing machine. Static and kinetic FRs were also measured. The passive self-ligating brackets generated a lower FR than all the other brackets. Static and kinetic FRs generally increased with an increase in the bracket-archwire angulation, and the rectangular wire caused significantly higher static and kinetic FRs than the round wire (p < 0.001). The metal passive self-ligating brackets exhibited the lowest static FR at the 0° angulation and a lower increase in static and kinetic FRs with an increase in bracket-archwire angulation than the other brackets, while the conventional twin brackets showed a greater increase than all three experimental brackets. The passive self-ligating brackets showed the lowest FR in this study. Self-ligating brackets can generate varying FRs in vitro according to the wire size, surface characteristics, and bracket-archwire angulation.
    Korean Journal of Orthodontics 01/2015; 45(1):13-9. DOI:10.4041/kjod.2015.45.1.13 · 0.37 Impact Factor