Comparison of frictional resistance between four types of brackets in combination with stainless steel and beta-titanium archwires

Nagesh, Shweta; Praveen, N.; Reddy, Sumitra

doi:10.25259/apos_43_2019

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[13,17,25,27,32] Depending on the gauge, section, and position of the wire in the slot, the clips of the active brackets work passively, without interaction with the wire, similar to the doors of the passive self-ligating brackets, showing similar friction results. [7,12,24,27] Our results also demonstrated that passive self-ligating brackets showed less resistance to friction than did active brackets when using rectangular 0.019" × 0.025" stainless steel wires. ese results corroborate with studies that compared the sliding of passive and active self-ligating brackets on rectangular stainless steel wires.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 61%

“…[1,4,17,26,27] Among these factors, the influence of the connective method of the wire to the bracket is the most commonly studied, observing that the self-ligating brackets have presented less friction than conventional brackets. [1,5,7,16,17] is study thus highlights, in an in vitro model, which the frictional resistance depends on the type of bracket design, wire section, and position of the elastomeric chain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several factors can influence the friction resistance for sliding mechanics, such as cross-sectioning and alloy composition of the wire, [1][2][3][4][5][6][7] composition and design of the bracket, [8][9][10] connection type from bracket to wire, [4,[11][12][13] and elastomeric ligatures or chains. [14,15] Among these factors, orthodontists can routinely select brackets, wires, and types of connections that can lead to smaller friction with better biological responses, allowing for benefits in orthodontic tooth movement within a shorter period.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Friction evaluation of an elastic chain positioned under or over the wire in self-ligating brackets

Silva

Pereira

Macari

et al. 2021

APOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the frictional resistance produced by active and passive self-ligating brackets on stainless steel archwires in the absence or presence of elastomeric chains under or over the wire. Materials and Methods: Four types of self-ligating brackets were used: Two active and two passive. For each commercial brand, five brackets were bonded to an acrylic plate and the frictional resistance was evaluated with 0.018” and 0.019” × 0.025” stainless steel wires in three situations: Without elastomeric chain, with elastomeric chain placed under and over the wire. Results: The bracket type, cross-section of the wire, and type of ligation had significant interactions with each other; the frictional resistance was significantly lower with the use of passive self-ligated brackets, while no difference was found when a 0.018” wire was tested. Moreover, the frictional resistance in the absence of an elastomeric chain, or when the chain was under the wire, was significantly lower in comparison with the values obtained when the chain was placed on the wire. Conclusion: Frictional resistance of passive and active self-ligated brackets is influenced by the ligation methods and the cross-sectioning of archwires.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Friction evaluation of an elastic chain positioned under or over the wire in self-ligating brackets

Silva

Pereira

Macari

et al. 2021

APOS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of Friction Resistance Between Different Bracket Systems: An In Vitro Study

Bhanderi,

Digumarthi

2024

J Indian Orthod Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The efficiency of tooth movement associated with orthodontic sliding mechanics can be compromised by friction between archwire and tube or bracket slot. Orthodontic brackets and archwires are important constituents of an orthodontic appliance system. Friction is an uncontrolled variable of particular interest when continuous arch techniques are used to align and move teeth by way of sliding a tube or bracket along an arch. Aim and Objectives Comparison of frictional resistance between different bracket systems of 3M and MO brands in combination with different wires of 3M, MO, and G&H brands. Evaluation of frictional resistance between two different types of bracket systems and different types of wire combinations. Materials and Methods Two types of bracket systems were used: metal bracket system and ceramic bracket system (3M and MO brands). Four different orthodontic wire alloys were used: stainless steel (SS), TMA, NiTi, and CuNiTi (3M, MO, and G&H brands). A rectangular block made up of self-cure acrylic resin was designed to hold the bracket during the mechanical test. Each bracket base was glued to an acrylic block with cyanoacrylate glue. The wire segment was inserted into the bracket and was ligated passively with SS ligature wire. The bracket–wire combination was submitted to mechanical tests with a universal testing machine. One end of the acrylic block was mounted to the lower grip of the universal testing machine. The free end of the archwire was fixed to the upper grip of the universal testing machine. The friction which was generated between the wire and bracket was measured under dry conditions and at room temperature. The test wire was pulled through the bracket at a speed of 0.5 cm/min. The load cell registered a maximum force level. This data was stored in the computer and was submitted to statistical analysis, and parameter tests were applied. Results The highest mean friction resistance of 5.998 N was generated by group B2-E2 (ceramic bracket – MO + TMA archwire – MO). The lowest mean friction resistance of 2.552 N was generated by group A1-C1 (metal bracket – 3M + SS wire – 3M). There was a statistically significant difference between the friction generated by the metal bracket on SS archwire and the ceramic bracket on TMA archwire regardless of 3M or MO brand material ( p value < .0001) and metal bracket ( p = .0004).

show abstract

Evaluation of frictional resistance between different bracket types, archwires and ligation material: An in-vitro study

Wani¹,

Siddiqui²,

Koul³

et al. 2023

IDJSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In orthodontic treatment, brackets need to slide along the archwire to allow for alignment of the teeth. The lesser the friction between the bracket and the archwire, the easier it is to align the teeth and the lighter the forces required to make such movements. In recent years, patients’ esthetic demands have driven the field of orthodontics to find alternatives to conventional stainless steel bracket systems. While ceramic brackets meet the esthetic demands, their inferior frictional characteristics have always been an issue for orthodontists.The present in-vitro research study evaluates and compares the frictional resistance between various types of brackets, archwire materials and ligation methods. The purpose of the study was to equate the frictional resistance among 12 different groups using the universal testing machine, so as to recognize the factors involved in the in-vitro appraisal of resistance to sliding (RS) and inferring their clinical implications. In this study, 120 pre-adjusted edgewise upper central incisor brackets with MBT 0.022″ slot were used, which included 40 standard metal brackets, 40 ceramic brackets, 20 self-ligating metal brackets and 20 self-ligating ceramic brackets. 0.019″ x 0.025″ SS (stainless steel) archwires, esthetic archwires, Teflon-coated ligatures and conventional elastic modules to ligate the archwire to the brackets except in self-ligating brackets, were used. The average frictional resistance of Group A10 was the minimum succeeded by A9, A12, A4, A11, A8, A3, A7, A2, A6, A1 and A5. In the comparison of the mean frictional resistance of 12 different groups, the ANOVA test showed noticeably different frictional resistance amongst the groups (F=745.80, P< 0.001). Self-ligating metal bracket combinations with different archwires showed a signiﬁcantly smaller magnitude of friction than self-ligating ceramic, metal and ceramic bracket combinations. Teflon-coated ligature combinations possess less friction in comparison with conventional elastomeric module combinations.

show abstract

Comparison of frictional resistance between four types of brackets in combination with stainless steel and beta-titanium archwires

Cited by 3 publications

References 21 publications

Friction evaluation of an elastic chain positioned under or over the wire in self-ligating brackets

Friction evaluation of an elastic chain positioned under or over the wire in self-ligating brackets

Comparison of Friction Resistance Between Different Bracket Systems: An In Vitro Study

Evaluation of frictional resistance between different bracket types, archwires and ligation material: An in-vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About