Effect of dental arch convexity and type of archwire on frictional forces

Fourie, Zacharias; Özcan, Mutlu; Sandham, Andrew

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.026

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Whenever, sliding occurs frictional resistance is encountered. [19] Friction between the arch wire and the bracket is multi factorial which increase or vary with wire size, angulation of wire to bracket, change in wire shape, and change in wire material, bracket width, lubrication, surface roughness, and ligature design. Several techniques have been used to measure the frictional resistance between the arch wire and brackets such as dynamometer, a weighted basket or bucket, a force gauge and universal testing machine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the frictional resistance between archwire and different bracket system: An in vitro study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the frictional resistance generated by conventional stainless steel, radiance ceramic bracket, self-ligating and composite brackets using a 0.019 × 0.025 stainless steel straight length wires in a 022 slot and to select brackets based on their frictional characteristic.Methodology:In order to conduct this study, four different types of bracket system were selected of the mclaughlin-bennet-trevesi (MBT) discipline. They are Group 1 - stainless steel, Group 2 - composite bracket Group 3 - (American Orthodontics) radiance ceramic bracket Group 4 - self-ligating bracket (SLB) (Empower). In this study, five maxillary brackets of an arch of each type were used. All brackets are 0.022 × 0.028 in preadjusted edgewise appliance which simulates the dental arch. Five brackets were bonded to a stainless steel bar of dimension 150 mm × 25 mm × 3 mm. The bracket-arch wire units were submitted to mechanical test with an Instron universal testing machine 3365. A testing apparatus or holding jig was designed to hold the bracket during the mechanical test. Each sample was pulled at a speed of 6 mm for 1 min. Descriptive statistical information including mean and standard deviation of maximum friction force was calculated for each bracket wire combination.Interpretation and Conclusion:The SLB has the least friction among the four groups. The ceramic bracket showed the highest friction followed by stainless steel bracket, composite bracket, and SLB.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the frictional resistance between archwire and different bracket system: An in vitro study

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12,28,29 With the model set in a straight aligned position, the conventional brackets had significantly higher frictional resistance because of the ligation force produced by elastomeric ligatures. The frictional forces of the self-ligating brackets were almost zero because no ligation force is generated by the active clip or the passive slide.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of bracket bevel design and oral environmental factors on frictional resistance

Chang¹,

Lee²,

Liu³

2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the effects of bracket bevel design and oral environmental factors (saliva, temperature) on frictional resistance. Materials and Methods: Five types of brackets, namely a conventional bracket (Omni-arch), an active self-ligating bracket (Clippy), and three passive self-ligating brackets (Carriere, Damon, and Tenbrook T1) coupled with a 0.014-inch austenitic nickel-titanium archwire were tested. In the experimental model, which used a group of five identical brackets, the center bracket was displaced 3 mm to mimic the binding effects. The friction experiments were performed at three temperatures (20uC, 37uC, 55uC) in a dry or a wet (artificial saliva) state. Finally, the surfaces of the bracket slots were observed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after the friction tests. Results: The sliding frictional force was significantly influenced by the bracket slot bevel and saliva whether in the active or passive configuration (P , .05). The frictional force significantly increased as the temperature increased in the active configuration (P , .01). Based on the SEM observations, a correlation was found among the level of frictional force, the bevel angle, and the depth of scratches on bracket bevels. Conclusion: Frictional force can be reduced by increasing the bevel angle and by lowering the oral temperature, whereas the presence of saliva increases frictional resistance. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:956-965.)

show abstract

“…Static friction needs to be overcome with movement of each tooth. 21 Regarding the bracket type, The SPEED SL brackets demonstrated a significantly (P< 0.001) more frictional resistance than both In-Ovation R and Synergy brackets with all archwires' sizes. These results were in agreement with other studies that proved a greater frictional resistance with SPEED brackets compared to In-Ovation brackets.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Frictional characteristics of active self-ligating brackets versus conventional brackets

Nassar

2010

Egyptian Orthodontic Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of dental arch convexity and type of archwire on frictional forces

Cited by 11 publications

References 21 publications

Comparison of the frictional resistance between archwire and different bracket system: An in vitro study

Comparison of the frictional resistance between archwire and different bracket system: An in vitro study

Effect of bracket bevel design and oral environmental factors on frictional resistance

Frictional characteristics of active self-ligating brackets versus conventional brackets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About