Evaluation of frictional resistance between different bracket types, archwires and ligation material: An in-vitro study

M. A. Wani, Shiraz Siddiqui, R. Koul, V. Yadav, Firdosh Rozy, Maisa Rasool Battoo
{"title":"Evaluation of frictional resistance between different bracket types, archwires and ligation material: An in-vitro study","authors":"M. A. Wani, Shiraz Siddiqui, R. Koul, V. Yadav, Firdosh Rozy, Maisa Rasool Battoo","doi":"10.18231/j.idjsr.2023.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In orthodontic treatment, brackets need to slide along the archwire to allow for alignment of the teeth. The lesser the friction between the bracket and the archwire, the easier it is to align the teeth and the lighter the forces required to make such movements. In recent years, patients’ esthetic demands have driven the field of orthodontics to find alternatives to conventional stainless steel bracket systems. While ceramic brackets meet the esthetic demands, their inferior frictional characteristics have always been an issue for orthodontists.The present in-vitro research study evaluates and compares the frictional resistance between various types of brackets, archwire materials and ligation methods. The purpose of the study was to equate the frictional resistance among 12 different groups using the universal testing machine, so as to recognize the factors involved in the in-vitro appraisal of resistance to sliding (RS) and inferring their clinical implications. In this study, 120 pre-adjusted edgewise upper central incisor brackets with MBT 0.022″ slot were used, which included 40 standard metal brackets, 40 ceramic brackets, 20 self-ligating metal brackets and 20 self-ligating ceramic brackets. 0.019″ x 0.025″ SS (stainless steel) archwires, esthetic archwires, Teflon-coated ligatures and conventional elastic modules to ligate the archwire to the brackets except in self-ligating brackets, were used. The average frictional resistance of Group A10 was the minimum succeeded by A9, A12, A4, A11, A8, A3, A7, A2, A6, A1 and A5. In the comparison of the mean frictional resistance of 12 different groups, the ANOVA test showed noticeably different frictional resistance amongst the groups (F=745.80, P< 0.001). Self-ligating metal bracket combinations with different archwires showed a significantly smaller magnitude of friction than self-ligating ceramic, metal and ceramic bracket combinations. Teflon-coated ligature combinations possess less friction in comparison with conventional elastomeric module combinations.","PeriodicalId":383292,"journal":{"name":"International Dental Journal of Student's Research","volume":"68 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Dental Journal of Student's Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18231/j.idjsr.2023.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In orthodontic treatment, brackets need to slide along the archwire to allow for alignment of the teeth. The lesser the friction between the bracket and the archwire, the easier it is to align the teeth and the lighter the forces required to make such movements. In recent years, patients’ esthetic demands have driven the field of orthodontics to find alternatives to conventional stainless steel bracket systems. While ceramic brackets meet the esthetic demands, their inferior frictional characteristics have always been an issue for orthodontists.The present in-vitro research study evaluates and compares the frictional resistance between various types of brackets, archwire materials and ligation methods. The purpose of the study was to equate the frictional resistance among 12 different groups using the universal testing machine, so as to recognize the factors involved in the in-vitro appraisal of resistance to sliding (RS) and inferring their clinical implications. In this study, 120 pre-adjusted edgewise upper central incisor brackets with MBT 0.022″ slot were used, which included 40 standard metal brackets, 40 ceramic brackets, 20 self-ligating metal brackets and 20 self-ligating ceramic brackets. 0.019″ x 0.025″ SS (stainless steel) archwires, esthetic archwires, Teflon-coated ligatures and conventional elastic modules to ligate the archwire to the brackets except in self-ligating brackets, were used. The average frictional resistance of Group A10 was the minimum succeeded by A9, A12, A4, A11, A8, A3, A7, A2, A6, A1 and A5. In the comparison of the mean frictional resistance of 12 different groups, the ANOVA test showed noticeably different frictional resistance amongst the groups (F=745.80, P< 0.001). Self-ligating metal bracket combinations with different archwires showed a significantly smaller magnitude of friction than self-ligating ceramic, metal and ceramic bracket combinations. Teflon-coated ligature combinations possess less friction in comparison with conventional elastomeric module combinations.
评估不同支架类型、弓丝和结扎材料之间的摩擦阻力:一项体外研究
在正畸治疗中,托槽需要沿着弓线滑动以使牙齿对齐。托架和弓丝之间的摩擦越小,对齐牙齿就越容易,进行这种运动所需的力就越轻。近年来,患者的审美需求推动了正畸领域寻找传统不锈钢支架系统的替代品。虽然陶瓷托槽符合审美要求,但其较差的摩擦特性一直是正畸医生的一个问题。本体外研究评估和比较了不同类型托槽、弓丝材料和结扎方法之间的摩擦阻力。本研究的目的是利用通用试验机对12个不同组的摩擦阻力进行等效,从而认识到体外评估滑动阻力(RS)所涉及的因素并推断其临床意义。本研究使用MBT 0.022″槽位的预调节上中切牙牙托120个,其中标准金属托槽40个,陶瓷托槽40个,自结扎金属托槽20个,自结扎陶瓷托槽20个。使用0.019″x 0.025″SS(不锈钢)弓丝、美观弓丝、特氟龙涂层结扎线和常规弹性模块将弓丝结扎到除自结扎支架外的支架上。A10组平均摩擦阻力最小,依次为A9、A12、A4、A11、A8、A3、A7、A2、A6、A1和A5。在12个不同组的平均摩擦阻力比较中,方差分析显示组间摩擦阻力差异显著(F=745.80, P< 0.001)。与自结扎陶瓷、金属和陶瓷支架组合相比,不同弓线组合的自结扎金属支架的摩擦幅度明显较小。与传统的弹性体模块组合相比,特氟龙涂层结扎组合具有更小的摩擦。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信