P. Thomas, Poornima Jnaneshwar, Krishnaraj Rajaram, S. Kishore, K. Venkatesan
{"title":"三种不同弓丝的陶瓷托槽、金属插入陶瓷托槽和传统金属托槽之间摩擦力的比较评价:一项体外研究","authors":"P. Thomas, Poornima Jnaneshwar, Krishnaraj Rajaram, S. Kishore, K. Venkatesan","doi":"10.4103/ijor.ijor_47_20","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the frictional resistance of clarity advanced ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic bracket, and conventional metal brackets with Nickel–titanium wire and stainless-steel archwire of varying dimensions. Materials and Methods: The sample size with 80% power was 45. The samples were divided into three groups each group consisting of 15, Group 1 – Clarity Advanced Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 2 – Metal insert Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 3 – Conventional Metal Brackets, the control group (3M Unitek). The wires used for testing were 0.016” Niti, 0.017 ×× 0.025” Niti and 0.019 ×× 0.025” SS. Results: In the present study, it was found that wire material (nickel titanium) had an effect on friction. It was found that metal insert ceramic bracket exhibited similar frictional resistance when compared to metal brackets for 0.017 × ×0.025” Niti and 0.019 × 0.025” SS wires. The Clarity Advanced bracket had the highest frictional resistance followed by metal insert ceramic and least with the conventional metal. Conclusion: Clarity advanced can be the bracket of choice for the esthetically discerning patients who do not require extraction for orthodontic reasons, but the high frictional resistance in relation to larger rectangular Niti archwires should be considered. In adult patients who require extraction in the treatment plan, metal insert ceramic brackets are definitely a pleasing alternative when compared to metal brackets.","PeriodicalId":29888,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic brackets, and conventional metal brackets with three different arch wires: An in vitro study\",\"authors\":\"P. Thomas, Poornima Jnaneshwar, Krishnaraj Rajaram, S. Kishore, K. Venkatesan\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ijor.ijor_47_20\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the frictional resistance of clarity advanced ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic bracket, and conventional metal brackets with Nickel–titanium wire and stainless-steel archwire of varying dimensions. Materials and Methods: The sample size with 80% power was 45. The samples were divided into three groups each group consisting of 15, Group 1 – Clarity Advanced Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 2 – Metal insert Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 3 – Conventional Metal Brackets, the control group (3M Unitek). The wires used for testing were 0.016” Niti, 0.017 ×× 0.025” Niti and 0.019 ×× 0.025” SS. Results: In the present study, it was found that wire material (nickel titanium) had an effect on friction. It was found that metal insert ceramic bracket exhibited similar frictional resistance when compared to metal brackets for 0.017 × ×0.025” Niti and 0.019 × 0.025” SS wires. The Clarity Advanced bracket had the highest frictional resistance followed by metal insert ceramic and least with the conventional metal. Conclusion: Clarity advanced can be the bracket of choice for the esthetically discerning patients who do not require extraction for orthodontic reasons, but the high frictional resistance in relation to larger rectangular Niti archwires should be considered. In adult patients who require extraction in the treatment plan, metal insert ceramic brackets are definitely a pleasing alternative when compared to metal brackets.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijor.ijor_47_20\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijor.ijor_47_20","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic brackets, and conventional metal brackets with three different arch wires: An in vitro study
Background: The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate the frictional resistance of clarity advanced ceramic brackets, metal insert ceramic bracket, and conventional metal brackets with Nickel–titanium wire and stainless-steel archwire of varying dimensions. Materials and Methods: The sample size with 80% power was 45. The samples were divided into three groups each group consisting of 15, Group 1 – Clarity Advanced Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 2 – Metal insert Ceramic Brackets (3M Unitek). Group 3 – Conventional Metal Brackets, the control group (3M Unitek). The wires used for testing were 0.016” Niti, 0.017 ×× 0.025” Niti and 0.019 ×× 0.025” SS. Results: In the present study, it was found that wire material (nickel titanium) had an effect on friction. It was found that metal insert ceramic bracket exhibited similar frictional resistance when compared to metal brackets for 0.017 × ×0.025” Niti and 0.019 × 0.025” SS wires. The Clarity Advanced bracket had the highest frictional resistance followed by metal insert ceramic and least with the conventional metal. Conclusion: Clarity advanced can be the bracket of choice for the esthetically discerning patients who do not require extraction for orthodontic reasons, but the high frictional resistance in relation to larger rectangular Niti archwires should be considered. In adult patients who require extraction in the treatment plan, metal insert ceramic brackets are definitely a pleasing alternative when compared to metal brackets.