The comparison of the frictional force by the type and angle of orthodontic bracket and the coated or non-coated feature of archwire

Tae-Ho Jang; Sang-Cheol Kim; Jin-Hyoung Cho; Jong-Moon Chae; Na-Young Chang; Kyung Hwa Kang

doi:10.4041/kjod.2011.41.6.399

Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.41(6) > 1043686

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Jang, Kim, Cho, Chae, Chang, and Kang: The comparison of the frictional force by the type and angle of orthodontic bracket and the coated or non-coated feature of archwire

Original Article

Korean Journal of Orthodontics

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2011; 41(6): 399-410.

Published online: 30 December 2011

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.6.399

The comparison of the frictional force by the type and angle of orthodontic bracket and the coated or non-coated feature of archwire

Tae-Ho Jang, DDS, MSD^a, Sang-Cheol Kim, DDS, MSD, PhD^b, Jin-Hyoung Cho, DDS, MSD, PhD^c, Jong-Moon Chae, DDS, MSD, PhD^c, Na-Young Chang, DDS, MSD^d, Kyung Hwa Kang, DDS, MSD, PhD^c

^aResident, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Korea.

^bProfessor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Korea.

^cAssociate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Korea.

^dAssistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Korea.

Corresponding author: Kyung Hwa Kang. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Wonkwang Dental Research Institute, 344-2 Sinyong-dong, Iksan 570-749, Korea. +82 63 850 6635; pigtail@wonkwang.ac.kr.

Received 20 May 2011 Revised 20 September 2011 Accepted 30 September 2011

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in frictional resistance among metal, ceramic, self-ligation brackets and coated or non-coated Ni-Ti archwires at various bracket-archwire angulations during the sliding movement of an orthodontic archwire, using an orthodontic sliding simulation device.

Methods

Four types of bracket (Micro-arch Perpect Clear2 Clippy-C and Damon3 and 5 types of orthodontic archwire (0.014", 0.016", and 0.016" × 0.022" inch coated Ni-Ti, and 0.016" and 0.016" × 0.022" inch Ni-Ti) were used. Further, the bracket-archwire angles were set at 4 different angulations: 0°, 3°, 6°, and 9°.

Results

The frictions from all the experimental groups were found to be significantly increased in order of self-ligation brackets, Micro-arch and Perpect Clear2 (p < 0.001). The presence of a coat had no effect on the friction of the same sized archwires at 0° and 3° bracket-archwire angles (p < 0.001). Coated archwires had significantly higher frictions than the same sized non-coated archwires at 6° and 9° bracket-archwire angles (p < 0.001). The frictions increased significantly as the bracket-archwire angles were increased (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The use of self-ligation brackets will be beneficial in clinical situations where a low frictional force is required. Further, in cases where crowding is not severe, the use of coated archwires should not cause problems. However, more additional explanation is required considering the fact that the damage of coated archwire and exposure of the metal portion in case of binding and notching and the effects of saliva were not taken into account.

Keywords: Friction, Coated Ni-Ti archwire, Orthodontic bracket

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Materials used in the study. A, Tested brackets (from the left side): Micro-arch, Perpect Clear2, Clippy-C, Damon3; B, tested wires.

Fig. 2

Friction-testing apparatus. A, Jig and mounting apparatus; B, friction-testing apparatus used in test.

Fig. 3

An example of representative graph of load cell output.

Table 1

Orthodontic materials used in this study

Table 2

Comparison of static frictional value among the bracket (grams)

SD, Standard deviation. Entries with the same superscripted letter were not significantly different at p < 0.05. ^*p < 0.001 (Duncan multiple range test).

Table 3

Comparison of kinetic frictional value among the bracket (grams)

SD, Standard deviation. Entries with the same superscripted letter were not significantly different at p < 0.05. ^*p < 0.001 (Duncan multiple range test).

Table 4

F-value and Duncan grouping of static & kinetic frictional value among the archwire

A, 0.014" inch coated Ni-Ti round wire; B, 0.016" inch coated Ni-Ti round wire; C, 0.016" inch Ni-Ti round wire; D, 0.016" × 0.022" inch coated Ni-Ti rectangular wire; E, 0.016" × 0.022" inch Ni-Ti rectangular wire. ^*p < 0.001.

Table 5

F-value and Duncan grouping of static & kinetic frictional value among the bracket-archwire angle

Table 6

Comparison of static frictional force according to combinations of bracket, archwire and angulation

Three-way ANOVA was done. ^*p < 0.05.

Table 7

Comparison of kinetic frictional force according to combinations of bracket, archwire and angulation

Three-way ANOVA was done. ^*p < 0.05.

References

1. Seong BN. Basic physics. 1981. Seoul: Ewoo Publication;60–63.

2. Cho MS, Kim JC. Frictional forces in the fixed orthodontic appliance during tooth movement. Korean J Orthod. 1990. 20:409–417.

3. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL. Orthodontics: current orthodontic concepts and techniques. 2005. 4th ed. St Louis: Elsevier Mosby;303–304.

4. Stoner MM. Force control in clinical practice. Am J Orthod. 1960. 46:163–168.

5. Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989. 96:397–404.

6. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin Orthod. 1997. 3:166–177.

7. Burrow SJ. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: a critical review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009. 135:442–447.

8. Redlich M, Mayer Y, Harari D, Lewinstein I. In vitro study of frictional forces during sliding mechanics of "reduced-friction" brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003. 124:69–73.

9. Nishio C, da Motta AF, Elias CN, Mucha JN. In vitro evaluation of frictional forces between archwires and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004. 125:56–64.

10. Suh CW, Jung HS, Cho JH, Kang KH. Comparison of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Korean J Orthod. 2005. 35:116–126.

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. Kapur Wadhwa R, Kwon HK, Sciote JJ, Close JM. Frictional resistance in ceramic and metal brackets. J Clin Orthod. 2004. 38:35–38.

13. Jeong TJ, Choie MK. Evaluation of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Korean J Orthod. 2000. 30:613–623.

14. Krishnan M, Kalathil S, Abraham KM. Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various archwire alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009. 136:675–682.

15. Stefanos S, Secchi AG, Coby G, Tanna N, Mante FK. Friction between various self-ligating brackets and archwire couples during sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010. 138:463–467.

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. 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.

18. Michelberger DJ, Eadie RL, Faulkner MG, Glover KE, Prasad NG, Major PW. The friction and wear patterns of orthodontic brackets and archwires in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. 118:662–674.

19. Han JS, Lee JW, Cha KS. A comparative study of frictional forces according to orthodontic wires and ligation method under dry and wet conditions. Korean J Orthod. 2001. 31:271–281.

20. Kusy RP. Orthodontic biomaterials: from the past to the present. Angle Orthod. 2002. 72:501–512.

21. Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D. Mechanical properties of coated superelastic archwires in conventional and self-ligating orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010. 137:213–217.

22. Choi WC, Kim TW, Park JY, Kwak JH, Na HJ, Park DN. The effect of bracket width on frictional force between bracket and arch wire during sliding tooth movement. Korean J Orthod. 2004. 34:253–260.

23. Tanne K, Matsubara S, Shibaguchi T, Sakuda M. Wire friction from ceramic brackets during simulated canine retraction. Angle Orthod. 1991. 61:285–290.

24. Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW, Sandrik JL. A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991. 100:513–522.

25. Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:472–480.

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

27. Kapila S, Angolkar PV, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS. Evaluation of friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990. 98:117–126.

28. Cha JY, Kim KS, Kim DC, Hwang CJ. Evaluation of friction of ceramic brackets in various bracket-wire combinations. Korean J Orthod. 2006. 36:125–135.

TOOLS

Similar articles