대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

  • 제49권1호
  • /
  • Pages.21-31
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2234-7518(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-372X(eISSN)
대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of different combinations of bracket, archwire and ligature on resistance to sliding and axial rotational control during the first stage of orthodontic treatment: An in-vitro study

  • Chen, Huizhong (Department of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Peking University) ;
  • Han, Bing (Department of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Peking University) ;
  • Xu, Tianmin (Department of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Peking University)
  • 투고 : 2018.04.12
  • 심사 : 2018.07.02
  • 발행 : 2019.01.25
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objective: This study was performed to explore the effect of different bracket, archwire, and ligature combinations on resistance to sliding (RS) and rotational control in first-order angulation. Methods: Three types of brackets (multi-level low friction [MLF], self-ligating, and conventional brackets) coupled with four nickel-titanium archwires (0.012, 0.014, 0.016, and 0.018-inch diameter) and two stainless steel ligatures (0.20 and 0.25 mm) were tested in different first-order angulations ($0^{\circ}$, $2^{\circ}$, $4^{\circ}$, $6^{\circ}$, $8^{\circ}$, $10^{\circ}$, $15^{\circ}$, $20^{\circ}$) by using an Instron universal mechanical machine in the dry state at room temperature. RS value was evaluated and compared by one-way ANOVA. Results: Under the same angulation, the RS values showed the following order: conventional brackets > MLF brackets > self-ligating brackets. The RS was the highest for conventional brackets and showed a tendency to increase. The RS for MLF brackets coupled with thinner archwires and ligatures showed a similar tendency as the RS for the self-ligating bracket. In contrast, the RS for MLF brackets coupled with thicker archwires and ligatures increased like that for conventional brackets. MLF brackets showed the greatest range of critical contact angles in first-order angulation. Conclusions: The RS in first-order angulation is influenced by bracket design, archwire, and ligature dimension. In comparison with self-ligating and conventional brackets, MLF brackets could express low friction and rotational control with their greater range of critical contact angles.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Resistance to sliding of orthodontic appliances in the dry and wet states: influence of archwire alloy, interbracket distance, and bracket engagement. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;52:797-811. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4636(20001215)52:4<797::AID-JBM25>3.0.CO;2-9
  4. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now? J Orthod 2003;30:262-73. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/30.3.262
  5. Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:726.e1-18; discussion 726-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.11.009
  6. Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010;80:575-84. https://doi.org/10.2319/081009-454.1
  7. Ong E, McCallum H, Griffin MP, Ho C. Efficiency of self-ligating vs conventionally ligated brackets during initial alignment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:138.e1-7; discussion 138-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.03.020
  8. Miles PG. Smartclip versus conventional twin brackets for initial alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005;21:123-7.
  9. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006;76:480-5.
  10. Fleming PS, DiBiase AT, Lee RT. Randomized clinical trial of orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:738-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.06.023
  11. Chen S, Chen G, Xu T. Clinical application of the PASS technique. J Clin Orthod 2015;49:508-15.
  12. Ko CC, Chen S, Zang H. Mechanical properties of various archwires and their clinical application in the PASS system. In: Xu TM, ed. Physiologic Anchorage control: a new orthodontic concept and its clinical application. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 71-86.
  13. Nanda R, Ghosh J. Biomechanical considerations in sliding mechanics. In: Nanda R, ed. Biomechanics in clinical orthodontics. Philadelphia: Saunders; 1997. p. 188-217.
  14. 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
  15. Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:216-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.06.018
  16. Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW. The influence of bracket design on moment production during axial rotation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:254-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81727-5
  17. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effect of archwire size and material on the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:295-305. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.126156
  18. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Comparison of resistance to sliding between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121:472-82. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.121562
  19. Jiang R, Teng F, Du F, Chen H, Xu TM. Drift dentition and low-friction appliance. In: Xu TM, ed. Physiologic Anchorage control: a new orthodontic concept and its clinical application. New York: Springer; 2017. p. 103-20.
  20. Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW, Sandrik JL. A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:513-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70091-A
  21. Suryawanshi GR, Sundareswaran S, Philip K, Kumar S. In vitro evaluation of different methods of ligation on friction in sliding mechanics. Orthodontics (Chic.) 2013;14:e102-9. https://doi.org/10.11607/ortho.905
  22. Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:416-22. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.14
  23. Yeh CL, Kusnoto B, Viana G, Evans CA, Drummond JL. In-vitro evaluation of frictional resistance between brackets with passive-ligation designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:704.e11-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.041
  24. Pesce RE, Uribe F, Janakiraman N, Neace WP, Peterson DR, Nanda R. Evaluation of rotational control and forces generated during first-order archwire deflections: a comparison of self-ligating and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:245-54. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr119
  25. O'Reilly D, Dowling PA, Lagerstrom L, Swartz ML. An ex-vivo investigation into the effect of bracket displacement on the resistance to sliding. Br J Orthod 1999;26:219-27. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/26.3.219
  26. Kusy RP. Ongoing innovations in biomechanics and materials for the new millennium. Angle Orthod 2000;70:366-76.