BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the deflection force in conventional and thermally activated nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires in passive (Damon Q) and active (Bioquick) self-ligating brackets (SLB) and in conventional brackets (CB) tied by two different methods: elastomeric ligature (EL) and metal ligature (ML).MethodsTwo wire diameters (0.014 and 0.016 in.) and 10 specimens per group were used. The specimens were assembled in a clinical simulation device and tested in an Instron Universal Testing Machine, with a load cell of 10 N. For the testing procedures, the acrylic block representative of the right maxillary central incisor was palatally moved, with readings of the force at 0.5, 1, 2, and 3 mm, at a constant speed of 2 mm/min and temperature of 36.5 °C.ResultsThe conventional NiTi released higher forces than the thermally activated NiTi archwires in large deflections. In general, the SLB showed lower forces, while the ML had higher forces, with both showing a similar force release behavior, constantly decreasing as the deflection decreased. The EL showed an irregular behavior. The active SLB showed smaller forces than passive, in large deflections.ConclusionsThe SLB and the ML exhibit standard force patterns during unloading, while the elastomeric ligatures exhibit a randomly distributed force release behavior.

The aim of this study was to evaluate deflection forces of orthodontic wires of different alloys engaged into conventional brackets using several ligation types. Stainless steel, conventional superelastic nickel-titanium and thermally activated nickel-titanium archwires tied into conventional brackets by a ring-shaped elastomeric ligature (RSEL), a 8-shaped elastomeric ligature (8SEL) and a metal ligature (ML) were tested. A clinical simulation device was created especially for this study and forces were measured with an Instron Universal Testing Machine. For the testing procedure, the block representing the maxillary right central incisor was moved 0.5 and 1 mm bucco-lingually at a constant speed of 2 mm/min, and the forces released by the wires were recorded, in accordance with the ISO 15841 guidelines. In general, the RSEL showed lighter forces, while 8SEL and ML showed higher values. At the 0.5 mm deflection, the 8SEL presented the greatest force, but at the 1.0 mm deflection the ML had a statistically similar force. Based on our evaluations, to obtain lighter forces, the thermally activated nickel-titanium wire with the RSEL are recommended, while the steel wire with the 8SEL or the ML are recommended when larger forces are desired. The ML exhibited the highest force increase with increased deflections, compared with the elastomeric ligatures.

Coated archwires and ceramic brackets have been developed to improve facial esthetics during orthodontic treatment. However, their mechanical behavior has been shown to be different from metallic archwires and brackets. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the deflection forces in coated nickel-titanium (NiTi) and esthetic archwires combined with ceramic brackets. Material and Methods Non-coated NiTi (NC), rhodium coated NiTi (RC), teflon coated NiTi (TC), epoxy coated NiTi (EC), fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), and the three different conventional brackets metal-insert polycrystalline ceramic (MI-PC), polycrystalline ceramic (PC) and monocrystalline ceramic (MC) were used. The specimens were set up on a clinical simulation device and evaluated in a Universal Testing Machine (Instron). An acrylic device, representative of the right maxillary central incisor was buccolingually activated and the unloading forces generated were recorded at 3, 2, 1 and 0.5 mm. The speed of the testing machine was 2 mm/min. ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to compare the different archwires and brackets.Results The brackets presented the following decreasing force ranking: monocrystalline, polycrystalline and polycrystalline metal-insert. The decreasing force ranking of the archwires was: rhodium coated NiTi (RC), non-coated NiTi (NC), teflon coated NiTi (TC), epoxy coated NiTi (EC) and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP). At 3 mm of unloading the FRP archwire had a plastic deformation and produced an extremely low force in 2; 1 and 0.5 mm of unloading.Conclusion Combinations of the evaluated archwires and brackets will produce a force ranking proportional to the combination of their individual force rankings.

Introduction: The aim of the study was to evaluate deflection forces of rectangular orthodontic wires in conventional (MorelliTM), active (In-Ovation RTM) and passive (Damon 3MXTM) self-ligating brackets. Material and Methods:Two brands of stainless steel and nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires (MorelliTM and GACTM), in addition to OrmcoTM copper-nickel-titanium wires were used. Specimens were assembled in a clinical simulation device especially designed for this study and tested in an Instron universal testing machine. For the testing procedures, an acrylic structure representative of the maxillary right central incisor was lingually moved in activations of 0 to 1 mm, with readings of the force released by deflection in unloading of 0.5, 0.8 and 1 mm at a constant speed of 2 mm/min. Inter-bracket forces with stainless steel, NiTi and CuNiTi were individually compared by two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s tests. Results: Results showed that there were lower forces in conventional brackets, followed by active and passive self-ligating brackets. Within the brands, only for NiTi wires, the MorelliTM brand presented higher forces than GACTM wires. Conclusions:Bracket systems provide different degrees of deflection force, with self-ligating brackets showing the highest forces.