Korean J Orthod.  2015 Jan;45(1):13-19. 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.1.13.

A comparative study of frictional force in self-ligating brackets according to the bracket-archwire angulation, bracket material, and wire type

• Lee SM
• Hwang CJ

• KMID: 2074818
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.1.13

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to compare the frictional force (FR) in self-ligating brackets among different bracket-archwire angles, bracket materials, and archwire types.
METHODS
Passive and active metal self-ligating brackets and active ceramic self-ligating brackets were included as experimental groups, while conventional twin metal brackets served as a control group. All brackets were maxillary premolar brackets with 0.022 inch [in] slots and a -7degrees torque. The orthodontic wires used included 0.018 round and 0.019 x 0.025 in rectangular stainless steel wires. The FR was measured at 0degrees, 5degrees, and 10degrees angulations as the wire was drawn through the bracket slots after attaching brackets from each group to the universal testing machine. Static and kinetic FRs were also measured.
RESULTS
The passive self-ligating brackets generated a lower FR than all the other brackets. Static and kinetic FRs generally increased with an increase in the bracket-archwire angulation, and the rectangular wire caused significantly higher static and kinetic FRs than the round wire (p < 0.001). The metal passive self-ligating brackets exhibited the lowest static FR at the 0degrees angulation and a lower increase in static and kinetic FRs with an increase in bracket-archwire angulation than the other brackets, while the conventional twin brackets showed a greater increase than all three experimental brackets.
CONCLUSIONS
The passive self-ligating brackets showed the lowest FR in this study. Self-ligating brackets can generate varying FRs in vitro according to the wire size, surface characteristics, and bracket-archwire angulation.

Keyword

Ceramic self-ligating bracket; Metal self-ligating bracket; Static frictional force; Kinetic frictional force

MeSH Terms

Bicuspid
Ceramics
Friction*
Humans
Orthodontic Wires
Stainless Steel
Torque
Ceramics
Stainless Steel

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Bracket-archwire assembly used in this study.

• 

  Figure 2 Comparison of scanning electron microscopy images of brackets. A-C, Damon3 MX brackets (20×, 200×, and 2,000× magnification, respectively). D-F, Quick brackets (20×, 200×, and 2,000× magnification, respectively). G-I, Clippy-C brackets (20×, 200×, and 2,000× magnification, respectively). J-L, Micro-arch brackets (20×, 200×, and 2,000× magnification, respectively).

Reference

1. Stoner MM. Force control in clinical practice. Am J Orthod. 1960; 46:163–186.

2. Kwak C, Kim JB, Son WS. A study on the changes of frictional force between bracket and orthodontic wire with time in artificial saliva. Korean J Orthod. 1993; 23:283–294.

3. Hwang HS, Park YC. An experimental study on frictional forces of various orthodontic wires under artificial saliva. Korean J Orthod. 1989; 19:245–256.

4. Ko JS, Yang KH. Frictional forces between orthodontic wire and bracket under artificial saliva. Korean J Orthod. 1988; 18:55–64.

5. Lee JH, Lee KS. An experimental study of dynamic frictional resistance between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Korean J Orthod. 2001; 31:467–477.

6. Min JM, Suhr CH. A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic brackets and arch wire during sliding movement of teeth. Korean J Orthod. 1988; 18:155–163.

7. Sung HM, Park YC. Comparison of the frictional resistance between orthodontic bracket & archwire. Korean J Orthod. 1991; 21:543–559.

8. Proffit WR. Contemporary orthodontics. St. Louis, USA: the C.V. Mosby Co.;1986. p. 263.

9. Peterson L, Spencer R, Andreasen G. A comparison of friction resistance for Nitinol and stainless steel wire in edgewise brackets. Quintessence Int Dent Dig. 1982; 13:563–571.

10. 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; 121:472–482.

11. 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.

12. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of friction of conventional and metal-insert ceramic brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124:403–409.

13. Maijer R, Smith DC. Time savings with self-ligating brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1990; 24:29–31.

14. Kim H, Kim KY, Kang YG, Kim SH, Kook YA. Clinical considerations with self-ligating brackets. Korean J Orthod. 2006; 36:474–482.

15. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1998; 20:283–291.

16. 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.

17. Garner LD, Allai WW, Moore BK. A comparison of frictional forces during simulated canine retraction of a continuous edgewise arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986; 90:199–203.

18. 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.

19. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod. 1980; 78:593–609.

20. Shin HJ, Kwon OW, Kim KH. The effect of ligation method on the frictional force between orthodontic bracket and archwire. Korean J Orthod. 1998; 28:813–823.

21. Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Traini T, Di Iorio D, D'Attilio M. Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75:1041–1045.

22. 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.