Background Orthodontic tooth movement relies on sliding mechanics usually achieved by sliding the archwire through brackets. Sliding causes friction which is a force resisting the relative motion of two contacting objects. Frictional resistance is undesirable in orthodontic tooth movement because the archwire might bind with the bracket and prevent tooth movement. In addition, friction causes bending of the archwire leading to unwanted tooth movement or space loss through anchorage interference, prolonging the treatment time and root resorption. This study was performed to compare the frictional resistance produced by different types of ceramic brackets and stainless steel brackets with Teflon-coated stainless steel and stainless steel archwires. The surface texture of the wire before and after friction test was also evaluated using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Methodology A total of 48 samples were tested. In total, 12 premolar brackets each of stainless steel (Ortho technology, Carlsbad, CA, USA), monocrystalline ceramic (Ortho technology, Carlsbad, CA, USA), polycrystalline ceramic (Ortho technology, Carlsbad, CA, USA), and ceramic bracket with a metal slot (Ortho technology, Carlsbad, CA, USA) having an 0.022-inch slot were coupled with 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel and Teflon-coated stainless steel wires. Each bracket-wire assembly was vertically mounted and clamped to the jaws of the universal testing machine. The wire was pulled across the bracket with a cross head speed of 10 mm per minute. The readings obtained were recorded. To evaluate the surface roughness, wires were examined using an SEM (in four magnifications 250×, 500×, 1,000×, and 5,000×) before and after testing. Results Under the testing conditions, the stainless steel bracket-stainless steel wire combination produced the least frictional resistance, and the polycrystalline ceramic bracket-stainless steel wire combination produced the highest frictional resistance. Ceramic brackets with a metal slot generated lesser friction than other types of ceramic brackets but more friction than stainless steel brackets. Moreover, for all bracket-archwire combinations, Teflon-coated wires generated reduced frictional resistance compared to stainless steel wires. The surface examination of Teflon-coated stainless steel wire and conventional uncoated stainless steel wire revealed that Teflon-coated wire had a smoother surface compared to uncoated stainless steel wire. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, it was concluded that the stainless steel bracket produced the lowest frictional resistance and the polycrystalline ceramic bracket produced the highest frictional resistance. Ceramic brackets with a metal slot showed a coefficient of friction that was more than but comparable to that of stainless steel brackets. Monocrystalline ceramic brackets generated lesser friction compared to polycrystalline ceramic brackets. Further, Teflon coating of stainl...

During orthodontic treatment it is crucial to prevent the unintentional movement of the anchorage unit whilst causing movement of other teeth. Conventional methods of anchorage control came along with many shortcomings. The introduction of skeletal anchorage in the form of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) or miniscrews has greatly benefited orthodontists in finding a way of anchorage control with minimum patient compliance and without a complicated clinical insertion and removal procedures. This review article outlines about the types of TADs, parts, techniques of insertion and removal and its clinical applications in orthodontics.

Treatment of class II malocclusion requires accurate diagnosis and treatment planning. This case report outlines the successful management of a growing skeletal class II using Forsus fatigue resistant device for correction of skeletal parameters and premolar extractions for correction of dental parameters. The patient’s profile improved significantly with a 4° reduction in ANB angle. An ideal overjet, overbite and molar relation were also attained.

It is a viral disease spread due to severe acute respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus virus. The virus has been spread extensively worldwide leading to a worldwide emergency. The strain of the virus is new and not been studied earlier. However the transmission of the virus is quick and immoderate. Efforts to contain the spread of the disease have led to major disruptions forcing regional and in many cases national emergencies and lockdown, leaving only essential services to continue. Human transmission is predominantly through the respiratory track via droplets, respiratory secretions and or direct contact where the virus enters the mucous membrane of the mouth, nose and eyes. Although contact with symptomatic patients is the typical route of transmission, asymptomatic individuals or those within the viral incubation period may also be able to transmit COVID 2019. In many such efforts performing elective tasks including orthodontic treatment are required to be suspended on orders of the central, state and civic and public health regulatory bodies. Due to unpresented nature of this pandemic and the unknown length of time that mandatory suspension of elective treatment may be in effect in different regions, consolidated information and guidelines for the clinical orthodontic management of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic are lacking.

The examination of Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) may be considered an acceptable way to depict the biochemical changes occurring during orthodontic tooth movement. Correlating the changes taking place in GCF with different types of orthodontic forces, the patient can be managed based on individual patients' tissue response. Thus, this can be an effective way of improving treatment efficiency and results. There is little evidence regarding which GCF biomarkers are associated with the growing phase. Most of the earlier reports provide information about correlation of GCF biomarkers with inflammation, bone remodeling and tissue damage and other processes associated with orthodontic tooth movement. This method is not being clinically used to its full diagnostic potential and requires further studies to provide additional data.