Korean J Orthod.  2019 Mar;49(2):73-80. 10.4041/kjod.2019.49.2.73.

In-vitro investigation of the mechanical friction properties of a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing lingual bracket system under diverse tooth displacement condition

• Kim DY
• Ha SW
• Cho IS
• Yang IH
• Baek SH

• KMID: 2453970
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2019.49.2.73

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to compare the static (SFF) and kinetic frictional forces (KFF) of a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing lingual bracket (CAD/CAM-LB) with those of conventional LB (Con-LB) and Con-LB with narrow bracket width (Con-LB-NBW) under 3 tooth displacement conditions.
METHODS
The samples were divided into 9 groups according to combinations of 3 LB types (CAD/CAM-LB [Incognito], Con-LB [7th Generation, 7G], and Con-LB-NBW [STb]) with 3 displacement conditions (no displacement [control], maxillary right lateral incisor with 1-mm palatal displacement [MXLI-PD], and maxillary right canine with 1-mm gingival displacement [MXC-GD]; n = 6/group). While drawing a 0.016-inch copper or super-elastic nickel-titanium archwire with 0.5 mm/min for 5 minutes in a chamber maintained at 36.5℃, SFF and KFF were measured. The Kruskal-Wallis method with Bonferroni correction was performed.
RESULTS
The Incognito group demonstrated the highest SFF, followed by the 7G and STb groups ([STb-control, STb-MXLI-PD, Stb-MXC-GD] < [7G-MXC-GD, 7G-MXLI-PD, 7G-control] < [Incognito-MXLI-PD, Incognito-control, Incognito-MXC-GD]; p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in SFF among the 3 displacement conditions within each bracket group. Within each displacement condition, the Incognito group demonstrated the highest KFF, followed by the 7G and STb groups ([STb-control, STb-MXLI-PD] < Stb-MXC-GD < 7G-MXLI-PD < [7G-control, 7G-MXC-GD] < [7G-MXC-GD, Incognito-MXLI-PD, Incognito-control] < [Incognito-control, Incognito-MXC-GD]; p < 0.001). MXC-GD exhibited higher KFFs than MXLI-PD in the same bracket group.
CONCLUSIONS
The slot design and ligation method of the CAD/CAM-LB system should be modified to reduce SFF and KFF during the leveling/alignment stage.

Keyword

Lingual bracket; Wire; Frictional properties; Tooth displacement

MeSH Terms

Computer-Aided Design*
Copper
Friction*
Incisor
Ligation
Methods
Tooth*
Copper

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Double overtie in conventional lingual bracket (Con-LB) (7th Generation; Ormco, Orange, CA, USA), single tie in Con-LB with narrow bracket width (STb; Ormco), and reverse double overtie in computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing lingual bracket (Incognito; 3M Unitek, Bad Essen, Germany). Arrows indicate the ligation method.

• 

  Figure 2 Screenshot of a customized bent archwire used in the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing lingual bracket system (Incognito; 3M Unitek, Bad Essen, Germany).

• 

  Figure 3 Definitions of static (SFF) and kinetic frictional forces (KFF) in this study. SFF was defined as the maximal point of the initial rise; KFF was calculated as the average of the frictional forces, from the SFF point to the end of experiment.

• 

  Figure 4 Comparison of frictional forces among the 3 lingual bracket types under the same displacement condition. A, Control, no displacement. B, 1-mm palatal displacement of the maxillary right lateral incisor. C, 1-mm gingival displacement of the maxillary right canine. 7th Generation: Ormco, Orange, CA, USA; STb: Ormco; Incognito: 3M Unitek, Bad Essen, Germany.

• 

  Figure 5 Comparison of frictional forces among the 3 displacement conditions within the same lingual bracket type. A, 7th Generation; B, STb; C, Incognito. Control, No displacement; MXC, 1-mm gingival displacement of the maxillary right canine; MXLI, 1-mm palatal displacement of the maxillary right lateral incisor. 7th Generation: Ormco, Orange, CA, USA; STb: Ormco; Incognito: 3M Unitek, Bad Essen, Germany.

Reference

1. Fujita K. Multilingual-bracket and mushroom arch wire technique. A clinical report. Am J Orthod. 1982; 82:120–140.

2. Creekmore T. Lingual orthodontics--its renaissance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 96:120–137.

3. Slater RD. Speech and discomfort during lingual orthodontic treatment. J Orthod. 2013; 40:Suppl 1. S34–S37.

4. Moran KI. Relative wire stiffness due to lingual versus labial interbracket distance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987; 92:24–32.

5. Wiechmann D, Rummel V, Thalheim A, Simon JS, Wiechmann L. Customized brackets and archwires for lingual orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124:593–599.

6. Scuzzo G, Takemoto K. STb light lingual system. Hanover Park, IL: Quintessence;2010.

7. Scuzzo G, Takemoto K, Takemoto Y, Takemoto A, Lombardo L. A new lingual straight-wire technique. J Clin Orthod. 2010; 44:114–123.

8. Lombardo L, Arreghini A, Al Ardha K, Scuzzo G, Takemoto K, Siciliani G. Wire load-deflection characteristics relative to different types of brackets. Int Orthod. 2011; 9:120–139.

9. Park KH, Bayome M, Park JH, Lee JW, Baek SH, kook YA. New classification of lingual arch form in normal occlusion using three dimensional virtual models. Korean J Orthod. 2015; 45:74–81.

10. Kim DY, Lim BS, Baek SH. Frictional property comparisons of conventional and self-ligating lingual brackets according to tooth displacement during initial leveling and alignment: an in vitro mechanical study. Korean J Orthod. 2016; 46:87–95.

11. Zinelis S, Sifakakis I, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Microstructural and mechanical characterization of contemporary lingual orthodontic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2014; 36:389–393.

12. Eliades T. Dental materials in orthodontics. In : Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL, editors. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby;2011. p. 1023–1038.

13. Demling A, Dittmer MP, Schwestka-Polly R. Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems. Head Face Med. 2009; 5:27.

14. Lombardo L, Wierusz W, Toscano D, Lapenta R, Kaplan A, Siciliani G. Frictional resistance exerted by different lingual and labial brackets: an in vitro study. Prog Orthod. 2013; 14:37.

15. Park JH, Lee YK, Lim BS, Kim CW. Frictional forces between lingual brackets and archwires measured by a friction tester. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74:816–824.

16. Ozturk Ortan Y, Yurdakuloglu Arslan T, Aydemir B. A comparative in vitro study of frictional resistance between lingual brackets and stainless steel archwires. Eur J Orthod. 2012; 34:119–125.

17. Lalithapriya S, Kumaran NK, Rajasigamani K. In vitro assessment of competency for different lingual brackets in sliding mechanics. J Orthod Sci. 2015; 4:19–25.

18. Pereira GO, Gimenez CM, Prieto L, Prieto MG, Basting RT. Influence of ligation method on friction resistance of lingual brackets with different secondorder angulations: an in vitro study. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016; 21:34–40.

19. Sifakakis I, Pandis N, Makou M, Katsaros C, Eliades T, Bourauel C. A comparative assessment of forces and moments generated by lingual and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35:82–86.

20. Alobeid A, El-Bialy T, Khawatmi S, Dirk C, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Comparison of the force levels among labial and lingual self-ligating and conventional brackets in simulated misaligned teeth. Eur J Orthod. 2017; 39:419–425.

21. Heo W, Baek SH. Friction properties according to vertical and horizontal tooth displacement and bracket type during initial leveling and alignment. Angle Orthod. 2011; 81:653–661.

22. Seo YJ, Lim BS, Park YG, Yang IH, Ahn SJ, Kim TW, et al. Effect of tooth displacement and vibration on frictional force and stick-slip phenomenon in conventional brackets: a preliminary in vitro mechanical analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2015; 37:158–163.

23. Seo YJ, Lim BS, Park YG, Yang IH, Ahn SJ, Kim TW, et al. Effect of self-ligating bracket type and vibration on frictional force and stick-slip phenomenon in diverse tooth displacement conditions: an in vitro mechanical analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2015; 37:474–480.

24. Komori A, Fujisawa M, Iguchi S. KommonBase for precise direct bonding of lingual orthodontic brackets. Int Orthod. 2010; 8:14–27.

25. Scuzzo G, Takemoto K, Takemoto Y, Scuzzo G, Lombardo L. A new self-ligation lingual bracket with square slots. J Clin Orthod. 2011; 45:682–690.

26. Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74:202–211.

27. Huntley PN. A modified over-tie for the ligation of Incognito™ lingual fixed appliances. J Orthod. 2013; 40:244–248.

28. Kim TK, Kim KD, Baek SH. Comparison of frictional forces during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of self-ligating brackets and archwires with a custom-designed typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:187.

29. Lai WJ, Midorikawa Y, Kanno Z, Takemura H, Suga K, Soga K, et al. A new orthodontic force system for moment control utilizing the flexibility of common wires: evaluation of the effect of contractile force and hook length. J Formos Med Assoc. 2018; 117:71–79.

30. Yun D, Choi DS, Jang I, Cha BK. Clinical application of an intraoral scanner for serial evaluation of orthodontic tooth movement: a preliminary study. Korean J Orthod. 2018; 48:262–267.