Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various archwire alloys

Krishnan, Manu; Sukumaran, K.; Abraham, Kurian Mathew

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.034

Cited by 49 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in accordance with the studies conducted by Cacciafesta et al, 5 Krishnan et al, 6 Stefanos et al, 9 Downing et al, 21 Kusy et al 22 who stated that the static friction is always greater than kinetic friction irrespective of the bracket or archwire combination used (Graph 1,2,3). …”

supporting

confidence: 81%

Frictional Resistance in Various Ceramic Brackets using Archwires of different Alloys, Sizes and Cross sections: A Comparative Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Friction at the bracket-archwire interface has been observed as one of the most important factors affecting tooth movement. Hence it is importance to assess the friction generated during tooth movement to bring about optimal treatment results. Objective:To compare the frictional resistance of various ceramic brackets using different archwires, and to compare the static and kinetic frictional force of various ceramic brackets using different archwires. Materials & Method:The present study evaluated and compared the friction generated at the bracket archwire interface when 0.018" and 0.019"x0.025" stainless steel archwires and 0.019"x0.025" teflon coated stainless steel archwires were moved through conventionally ligated, passive self-ligating and interactive self-ligating ceramic brackets. The static and kinetic frictional forces were also evaluated and compared.Result: Highly significant differences in kinetic (p<0.001) and static (p<0.001) frictional forces were observed in all three groups when used with the different archwires. On comparing the static and kinetic frictional forces significant differences were observed among all three groups (p<0.05). Conclusion:The passive self-ligating brackets produce the least frictional forces when compared to interactive self-ligating and conventionally ligated brackets. Also, the static frictional forces were found to be more as compared to kinetic frictional forces

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 81%

Frictional Resistance in Various Ceramic Brackets using Archwires of different Alloys, Sizes and Cross sections: A Comparative Study

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The compressive force of the closed power chain between the miniimplant distal to the second bicuspid and the hook distal to the lateral incisor induces distal movement of the upper archwire along with the anterior teeth. Frictional forces are generated at the bracket slots of the second bicuspid and the first molar posterior to the extraction space and archwires (Krishnan et al 2009). In general the frictional force between the archwire and bracket reduces the efficiency of orthodontic treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in Ultrastructure and properties of bracket slots after Orthodontic treatment with bicuspid extraction

Choi¹,

Park²,

Cheong³

et al. 2011

Scanning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the effects of an orthodontic treatment using a bicuspid extraction on the surface roughness and mechanical properties of stainless steel (SS) brackets adjacent to the extraction space. Four experimental groups were employed; groups 1 and 2 used the Archist(®) SS brackets before and after the extraction treatment, respectively, and groups 3 and 4 used the Victory(®) SS brackets before and after the extraction treatment, respectively. The slot surfaces of the bracket were scanned in air at a resolution of 512 × 512 pixels with a scan speed of 0.8 line/s. The visco-elasticity of the bracket slot was determined from the force-distance curves of atomic force microscopy. The orthodontic treatment with bicuspid extraction led to a significant increase (p<0.0001) in surface roughness in both groups. In particular, the Archist(®) SS brackets showed more changes than the Victory(®) SS brackets (p<0.0005). However, there was no significant difference in properties of the Victory(®) and Archist(®) brackets between before and after treatment. This suggests that the orthodontic treatment with bicuspid extraction is more responsible for the changes in surface roughness than the properties of the brackets.

show abstract

“…There is increasing resistance to sliding as the angles increase [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] . Considering the types of brackets, the self-ligating system has lower frictional forces compared with conventional types 9,10,[12][13][14][15][16][17][18] . The Barbosa Versatile (BV) bracket 19 design may provide lower frictional force, greater sliding, and require less anchorage.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of friction produced by self-ligating, conventional and Barbosa Versatile brackets

Barbosa

Elias

Basting

2016

Rev. odontol. UNESP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ResumoIntrodução: O bráquete Barbosa Versátil apresenta um desenho que pode promover menor resistência friccional e maior deslize. No entanto, nenhum estudo in vitro avaliou seu mecanismo de deslize e resistência ao atrito, mesmo quando comparado com outros bráquetes autoligados ou convencionais. Objetivo: Comparar a resistência ao atrito entre bráquetes autoligados (EasyClip/ Aditek, Damon MX/ Ormco e In Ovation R/ GAC), convencionais (Balance Roth/ GAC, and Roth Monobloco/ Morelli) e o bráquete Barbosa Versátil (Barbosa Versatile/ GAC) com diferentes angulações e fios. Material e método: Os bráquetes foram avaliados com fios de aço inox 0.014", 0.018", 0.019"×0.025" e 0.021"×0.025", com angulações de 0, 5, 10, 15 e 20 graus. Amarrias foram realizadas com ligaduras elastoméricas para os bráquetes convencionais e para o Barbosa Versátil, enquanto que se utilizou o sistema de fechamento próprio para os bráquetes autoligados. A máquina de teste universal foi utilizada para as avaliações de resistência ao atrito entre os bráquetes e fios. Resultado: ANOVA em esquema fatorial 4 × 5 × 6 (bráquetes × angulação × fios) e o teste de Tukey mostraram que houve diferenças significativas para todos os fatores e interações (p<0,0001). Houve menor resistência ao atrito para o bráquete Barbosa Versátil e maior para os bráquetes Roth Monobloco e Balance. Conclusão: Menor resistência ao atrito foi obtida com o bráquete Barbosa Versátil e com os autoligados em comparação com os bráquetes convencionais. O aumento do diâmetro dos fios aumenta a resistência ao atrito. Menores angulações promovem menor resistência ao atrito.Descritores: Fricção; fios ortodônticos; bráquetes ortodônticos. Abstract Introduction:The Barbosa Versatile bracket design may provide lower frictional force and greater sliding. However, no in vitro studies have shown its sliding mechanisms and frictional resistance, particularly in comparison with other self-ligating or conventional brackets. Objective: To compare the frictional resistance among self-ligating brackets (EasyClip/ Aditek, Damon MX/ Ormco and In Ovation R/ GAC); conventional brackets (Balance Roth/ GAC, and Roth Monobloc/ Morelli); and Barbosa Versatile bracket (Barbosa Versatile/ GAC) with different angles and arch wires. Material and method: Brackets were tested with the 0.014", 0.018", 0.019"×0.025" and 0.021"×0.025" stainless steel wires, with 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20 degree angulations. Tying was performed with elastomeric ligature for conventional and Barbosa Versatile brackets, or with a built-in clip system of the self-ligating brackets. A universal testing machine was used to obtain sliding strength and friction value readouts between brackets and wires. Result: Three-way factorial ANOVA 4×5×6 (brackets × angulation × wire) and Tukey tests showed statistically significant differences for all factors and all interactions (p<0.0001). Static frictional resistance showed a lower rate for Barbosa Versatile bracket and higher rates for Roth Monobloc and Balance brackets. Conclusion: The lowest frict...

show abstract

Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various archwire alloys

Cited by 49 publications

References 29 publications

Frictional Resistance in Various Ceramic Brackets using Archwires of different Alloys, Sizes and Cross sections: A Comparative Study

Frictional Resistance in Various Ceramic Brackets using Archwires of different Alloys, Sizes and Cross sections: A Comparative Study

Changes in Ultrastructure and properties of bracket slots after Orthodontic treatment with bicuspid extraction

Evaluation of friction produced by self-ligating, conventional and Barbosa Versatile brackets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About