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

Abstract

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...

Evaluation of friction on self-ligating and conventional brackets associated with different types of archwires submitted to sliding mechanics

“…The lower friction values observed in the presence of passive self-ligating brackets would result from the smaller surface of contact between the archwire and internal part of the slot, resulting from the absence of pressure exerted by the clip of this bracket. The findings of this study corroborated those of previous studies in which it was proved that the increase in contact surface increased the friction 1,2,5,7,11,13,14,16,18,24 .…”

“…Our findings corroborated the results found by researchers when they made a comparison between self-ligating and conventional brackets, in which the lower frictional resistance would only be observed when these brackets were combined with wires with smaller diameters. These results would be justified by the reduction in the surface of contact between the slot and archwire 1,2,5,11,13,14,24,26,29 .…”

“…This was done to obtain the maximum level of standardization among the groups, to prevent any poorly positioned bracket from affecting the reliability of the results 11,14 . After the brackets were fixed, the rectangular archwire segments of copper nickel titanium and stainless steel, measuring 0.019 x 0.025 inches and 20 cm long were positioned 3,10,23,24 .…”

“…The frictional forces between conventional and (passive and active) self-ligating brackets, associated with archwires that have different section and compositions have been studied 2,6,12,24 . However, no reports were found of studies comparing the frictional force between active and passive self-ligating brackets with rectangular 0.019 x 0.025 inch sections of copper nickel titanium and stainless steel, in a wet environment at a temperature of 36.5 0 C.…”

Evaluation of friction in metal, ceramic and self-ligating brackets submitted to sliding mechanics

“…In this research, the authors found that the self-ligating and conventional metal brackets produced similar frictional forces in the sliding technique, in disagreement with the others studies [22][23][24] who tested self-ligating and conventional metal brackets, and concluded that the frictional force values found were higher in the conventional brackets, one of the justifications for this result, according to the authors, would be that no elastic was used, thus making the wire run more easily through the self-ligating bracket, allowing a lower force and faster tooth sliding.…”