Comparison of frictional resistance between passive self-ligating brackets and slide-type low-friction ligature brackets during the alignment and leveling stage

Gómez-Gómez, Sandra-Liliana; Villarraga-Ossa, Junes-Abdul; Diosa-Peña, Juan Gustavo; Ortiz-Restrepo, Juan-Fernando; Castrillón-Marín, Robinson-Andrés; Medina, C.M. Ardila

doi:10.4317/jced.55913

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The more rigid (or less compressible) the clip material, the higher the friction force produced. [12] This theory supports the results of this study that is the bracket clip of In-Ovation R, which has Co-Cr material, produced higher friction coefficient than Empower and BioQuick, which have stainless steel as their main material.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Comparison of frictional coefficient and surface roughness between three different active self-ligating brackets: An experimental in vitro study

Syahdinda¹,

Lucynda²,

Triwardhani³

et al. 2020

J Int Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Comparison of frictional coefficient and surface roughness between three different active self-ligating brackets: An experimental in vitro study

Syahdinda¹,

Lucynda²,

Triwardhani³

et al. 2020

J Int Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been found that the friction of materials with an apparently smooth surface tends to be high if production-related burrs protrude into the slot [ 16 ] or if the archwires show structural irregularities [ 20 ]. Thus, the geometry of irregularities of wire surfaces should be investigated further.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The friction is less than that of NiTi and that of β‑Ti [ 16 ]. β‑Ti displays a distinct surface roughness [ 20 ], and frictional values are correspondingly high [ 16 ]—up to six times higher than that of stainless steel wires [ 15 ]. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) images of the surface structures of Gummetal®, stainless steel, β‑Ti, CoCr, and NiTi are shown in Fig.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Friction behavior of the wire material Gummetal®

Kopsahilis

Drescher

2021

J Orofac Orthop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Gummetal® (Maruemu Works, Osaka, Japan), a new orthodontic wire material successfully used in clinical applications since 2006, is biocompatible and exhibits exceptionally high elasticity, nonlinear elastic behavior, plasticity and strength. Systematic comparisons of friction behavior are lacking; thus, the friction of Gummetal® in the binding modus was compared to commonly used low friction wires. Materials and methods In vivo tests were run with Gummetal®, CoCr (cobalt-chromium Elgiloy®, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, CO, USA), β‑Ti (β-Titanium TMA®, Ormco, Orange, CA, USA), NiTi (nickel–titanium, NiTi-SE, Dentalline, Birkenfeld, Germany), and stainless steel (SS; Ref. 251-925, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) [dimensions: 0.014 inch (0.35 mm), 0.016 inch (0.40 mm), 0.016 × 0.022 inch (0.40 × 0.56 mm), and 0.019 × 0.025 inch (0.48 × 0.64 mm)—β-Ti not available in the dimension 0.014 inch]. These were combined with Discovery® (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), Micro Sprint® (Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany), Clarity™ (3M Unitek), and Inspire Ice™ (Ormco) and slots in the dimension 0.022 inch (0.56 mm) and, except for the 0.019 × 0.025 inch wires, in the dimension 0.018 inch (0.46 mm). They were ligated with a 0.010 inch (0.25 mm) steel ligature (Smile Dental, Ratingen, Germany). Brackets were angulated by applying a moment of force of 10 Nmm against the wire, which was pulled through the slot at 0.2 mm/s. Results In 660 tests using 132 bracket–wire combinations, friction loss for Gummetal® was comparable to and, in a few combinations with Micro Sprint®, significantly lower (p < 0.05) than SS and CoCr. The friction for Gummetal® was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than NiTi, and β‑Ti. In some bracket–wire combinations, lower friction was found with round wires compared to rectangular wires, except for the combination with Inspire Ice™, which was higher but not significant. Slot size did not have a significant effect on friction in most combinations. Conclusion The low friction associated with Gummetal® wires during arch-guided tooth movement will be a valuable addition to the armamentarium of orthodontists.

show abstract

“…Esto hace que sea difícil comparar los resultados observados en el presente estudio. Además, si se trata de investigaciones "in vitro," es difícil garantizar las mismas condiciones en cada uno de los experimentos, incluyendo la posición específica del alambre con respecto a las paredes de la ranura del bracket y que esta posición sea reproducible en cada deslizamiento, aumentando la susceptibilidad a sesgos (13)(14)(15)(16). Todo lo anterior, dificulta contrastar detalladamente los resultados de este estudio con referentes ya publicados.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Resistencia friccional entre brackets cerámicos y brackets de autoligado usando un análisis de elementos finitos

Gómez-Gómez

Montoya-Góez²,

González-Flórez

et al. 2020

CES odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción y objetivo: La fricción en la ortodoncia se produce por contacto directo entre el bracket, el alambre y la ligadura. La fricción reduce la eficiencia en los tratamientos de ortodoncia. Esta investigación comparó la resistencia a la fricción entre los brackets cerámicos convencionales y los brackets cerámicos de autoligado pasivos utilizando un método de elementos finitos (MEF). Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un total de 810 deslizamientos, combinando brackets cerámicos convencionales y autoligados, y alambres de ortodoncia de acero inoxidable, níquel-titanio y de la aleación β-titanio de 0.016 pulgadas, 0.017x0.025 pulgadas y 0.019 x0.025 pulgadas. La media máxima de resistencia a la fricción estática (MRF) se comparó entre las diferentes combinaciones de brackets, alambre, ligadura y angulación del bracket de 0 °, 7 ° y 13 °. Resultados: Las variables con el comportamiento de fricción más alto fueron 13 °, aleación β titanio, 0.017x0.025 pulgadas, y brackets cerámicos convencionales con ligaduras elásticas. Conclusión: MEF es una alternativa adecuada para la predicción de la MRF en varias combinaciones de brackets, alambres, ligaduras y angulaciones. El método permitió definir una menor resistencia a la fricción para los brackets de autoligado, así como una relación directa entre el aumento del ángulo y el área de contacto entre el bracket y el alambre, con valores más altos de resistencia al deslizamiento. Se estableció que un alambre de mayor calibre no implica un área de mayor contacto con el bracket.

show abstract

Comparison of frictional resistance between passive self-ligating brackets and slide-type low-friction ligature brackets during the alignment and leveling stage

Cited by 7 publications

References 26 publications

Comparison of frictional coefficient and surface roughness between three different active self-ligating brackets: An experimental in vitro study

Comparison of frictional coefficient and surface roughness between three different active self-ligating brackets: An experimental in vitro study

Friction behavior of the wire material Gummetal®

Resistencia friccional entre brackets cerámicos y brackets de autoligado usando un análisis de elementos finitos

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About