The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of the frictional characteristics of aesthetic orthodontic brackets measured using a modified in vitro technique

  • Arici, Nursel (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University) ;
  • Akdeniz, Berat Serdar (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University) ;
  • Arici, Selim (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University)
  • Received : 2014.03.14
  • Accepted : 2014.07.14
  • Published : 2015.01.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The coefficients of friction (COFs) of aesthetic ceramic and stainless steel brackets used in conjunction with stainless steel archwires were investigated using a modified linear tribometer and special computer software, and the effects of the bracket slot size (0.018 inches [in] or 0.022 in) and materials (ceramic or metal) on the COF were determined. Methods: Four types of ceramic (one with a stainless steel slot) and one conventional stainless steel bracket were tested with two types of archwire sizes: a $0.017{\times}0.025$-in wire in the 0.018-in slots and a $0.019{\times}0.025$-in wire in the 0.022-in slot brackets. For pairwise comparisons between the 0.018-in and 0.022-in slot sizes in the same bracket, an independent sample t-test was used. One-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post-hoc test at the 95% confidence level (${\alpha}$ = 0.05) were also used for statistical analyses. Results: There were significant differences between the 0.022-in and 0.018-in slot sizes for the same brand of bracket. ANOVA also showed that both slot size and bracket slot material had significant effects on COF values (p < 0.001). The ceramic bracket with a 0.022-in stainless steel slot showed the lowest mean COF (${\mu}$ = 0.18), followed by the conventional stainless steel bracket with a 0.022-in slot (${\mu}$ = 0.21). The monocrystalline alumina ceramic bracket with a 0.018-in slot had the highest COF (${\mu}$ = 0.85). Conclusions: Brackets with stainless steel slots exhibit lower COFs than ceramic slot brackets. All brackets show lower COFs as the slot size increases.

Keywords

References

  1. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod 1980;78:593-609. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(80)90199-2
  2. Braun S, Bluestein M, Moore BK, Benson G. Friction in perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:619-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70286-6
  3. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Ricciardi A, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:395-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00504-3
  4. Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90324-7
  5. Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod 1997;24:309-17. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/24.4.309
  6. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Prewitt MJ. Comparison of the frictional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod 1991;61:293-302.
  7. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Effects of sliding velocity on the coefficients of friction in a model orthodontic system. Dent Mater 1989;5:235-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(89)90067-5
  8. Saunders CR, Kusy RP. Surface topography and frictional characteristics of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:76-87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70024-9
  9. Stannard JG, Gau JM, Hanna MA. Comparative friction of orthodontic wires under dry and wet conditions. Am J Orthod 1986;89:485-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(86)90006-0
  10. Willems G, Clocheret K, Celis JP, Verbeke G, Chatzicharalampous E, Carels C. Frictional behavior of stainless steel bracket-wire combinations subjected to small oscillating displacements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:371-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.116088
  11. Clocheret K, Willems G, Carels C, Celis JP. Dynamic frictional behaviour of orthodontic archwires and brackets. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:163-70. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/26.2.163
  12. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Influence of fluid media on the frictional coefficients in orthodontic sliding. Semin Orthod 2003;9:281-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sodo.2003.08.007
  13. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin Orthod 1997;3:166-77. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(97)80067-9
  14. Zinelis S, Eliades T, Eliades G, Makou M, Silikas N. Comparative assessment of the roughness, hardness, and wear resistance of aesthetic bracket materials. Dent Mater 2005;21:890-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.007
  15. Bazakidou E, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG Jr, Sinha P. Evaluation of frictional resistance in esthetic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112: 138-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70238-5
  16. Cha JY, Kim KS, Hwang CJ. Friction of conventional and silica-insert ceramic brackets in various bracketwire combinations. Angle Orthod 2007;77:100-7. https://doi.org/10.2319/092705-333R.1
  17. Reicheneder CA, Baumert U, Gedrange T, Proff P, Faltermeier A, Muessig D. Frictional properties of aesthetic brackets. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:359-65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjm033
  18. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of friction of conventional and metal-insert ceramic brackets in various bracketarchwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:403-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00501-8
  19. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998; 20:283-91. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.3.283
  20. Franchi L, Baccetti T, Camporesi M, Lupoli M. Maxillary arch changes during leveling and aligning with fixed appliances and low-friction ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:88-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.017
  21. Pratten DH, Popli K, Germane N, Gunsolley JC. Frictional resistance of ceramic and stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:398-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81647-6
  22. Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Frictional resistance in orthodontic brackets with repeated use. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:400-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70224-6
  23. Russell JS. Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod 2005;32:146-63. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531205225021024
  24. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Frictional resistances of metallined ceramic brackets versus conventional stainless steel brackets and development of 3-D friction maps. Angle Orthod 2001;71:364-74.
  25. De Franco DJ, Spiller RE Jr, von Fraunhofer JA. Frictional resistances using Teflon-coated ligatures with various bracket-archwire combinations. Angle Orthod 1995;65:63-72.
  26. Omana HM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Frictional properties of metal and ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:425-32.
  27. Burrow SJ. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: a critical review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:442-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.023
  28. Rock WP, Wilson HJ. The effect of bracket type and ligation method upon forces exerted by orthodontic archwires. Br J Orthod 1989;16:213-7. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.16.3.213
  29. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Influence of archwire and bracket dimensions on sliding mechanics: derivations and determinations of the critical contact angles for binding. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:199-208. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.2.199

Cited by

  1. Friction behavior of ceramic injection-molded (CIM) brackets vol.77, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0030-8
  2. Evaluation of friction produced by self-ligating, conventional and Barbosa Versatile brackets vol.45, pp.2, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.09515
  3. A comparative analysis of the frictional resistance of esthetic orthodontic wires vol.48, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.02219
  4. Computational study on the effect of contact friction towards deactivation force of superelastic NiTi arch wire in a bracket system vol.6, pp.8, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1088/2053-1591/ab2255
  5. Effectiveness of medical coating materials in decreasing friction between orthodontic brackets and archwires vol.51, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2021.51.4.270