A comparative in vitro study of frictional resistance between lingual brackets and stainless steel archwires

A Comparative Evaluation of Frictional Resistance of Various Lingual Brackets With Nitinol (NiTi) Archwires of Different Dimensions: An In Vitro Study

Introduction Orthodontic mechanics involves transferring some of the applied force to the tooth's supporting components via friction, which in turn allows the tooth to move more easily. Aim The purpose of this in vitro experiment was to examine the frictional resistance (FR) of different lingual brackets utilizing Instron universal testing machines and nitinol (NiTi) archwires of varying sizes. Materials and methods Twenty-four sectional anterior die stones were replicated from a study model. They were categorized into eight categories, with the Libral lingual bracket and the JJ lingual bracket having 0.012" and 0.014" inch NiTi archwire, which were further subdivided into six subgroups. Three brackets were bonded to the anterior teeth of the upper and lower segments and replicated on other models with the help of silicon putty. Elastomeric modules were ligated to two diameters of NiTi wire (0.012" and 0.014") in each model. An Instron universal testing machine was used to measure the frictional force. Numerical data and descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation have been shown. Results In the overall analysis, it was observed that among JJ Orthodontics samples using 0.012" NiTi archwires, the maxilla exhibited a higher FR (4.205N) compared to the mandible (4.092N). Similarly, in the case of Libral Orthodontics samples with 0.012" NiTi archwires, the maxilla also demonstrated a higher FR (5.10N) than the mandible (4.97N). However, this trend did not hold for samples using 0.014" NiTi archwires. There was a statistically nonsignificant difference (p > 0.05) in the values between all the pairs of groups. Conclusion The present study concludes that Libral lingual brackets produced overall more FR than JJ lingual brackets.

An In Vitro Evaluation of Frictional Characteristics of Labial and Lingual Self-ligating Brackets with Various Archwire Alloys

Background: An understanding of bracket slot–archwire interface is imperative for biomechanical effectiveness in orthodontic sliding mechanics and hence the aim of the study is to evaluate frictional properties of lingual self-ligating brackets comparing with conventional lingual and labial self-ligating brackets using three different archwire alloys in various environments.

Materials and Methods: This in vitro study compared the frictional force of labial and lingual self-ligating and conventional lingual brackets with stainless steel, TMA, and Cr-Co alloy archwires of 0.017” × 0.025” dimension in dry and wet conditions. Frictional forces were evaluated in a simulated half arch fixed appliance using a testing machine. Static and kinetic friction were measured and analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANNOVA) test and post hoc Duncan multiple range test. The effects of brackets and archwires in dry and wet conditions were analyzed by three-way variance (ANNOVA) test.

Result: The maximum frictional forces were observed with labial self-ligating brackets followed by lingual conventional brackets and the least by lingual self-ligating brackets. Of all the wires tested, TMA wires had the maximum frictional forces followed by Co-Cr and stainless steel. In both conditions, the values were non-significant with all bracket–wire combinations except with Co-Cr and TMA wires.

Conclusions: Varied amount of frictional force was shown by the brackets and wires with highest by labial self-ligating bracket, followed by lingual conventional and lingual self-ligating brackets. TMA wires experienced higher friction followed by Co-Cr and stainless steel with minimum friction.

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

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.

Resistance to sliding in orthodontics: misconception or method error? A systematic review and a proposal of a test protocol

Resistance to sliding (RS) between the bracket, wire, and ligature has been largely debated in orthodontics. Despite the extensive number of published studies, the lack of discussion of the methods used has led to little understanding of this phenomenon. The aim of this study was to discuss variables affecting RS in orthodontics and to suggest an operative protocol. The search included PubMed©, Medline©, and the Cochrane Library©. References of full-text articles were manually analyzed. English-language articles published between January 2007 and January 2017 that performed an in vitro analysis of RS between the bracket, wire, and ligature were included. Study methods were analyzed based on the study design, description of materials, and experimental setup, and a protocol to standardize the testing methods was proposed. From 404 articles identified from the database search and 242 records selected from published references, 101 were eligible for the qualitative analysis, and six for the quantitative synthesis. One or more experimental parameters were incompatible and a meta-analysis was not performed. Major factors regarding the study design, materials, and experimental setup were not clearly described by most studies. The normal force, that is the force perpendicular to the sliding of the wire and one of the most relevant variable in RS, was not considered by most studies. Different variables were introduced, often acting as confounding factors. A protocol was suggested to standardize testing procedures and enhance the understanding of in vitro findings.

Wire Roughness Assessment of 0.016'' × 0.022'' the Technique Lingual Orthodontics

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the difference in surface roughness of stainless steel archwires of different commercial brands used in lingual orthodontics.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Precontoured arches measuring 0.016'' × 0.022'' were selected of the following brands: Tecnident, Adenta, G&H, Highland Metals Inc., Ormco, Incognito, and Ebraces. Quantitative evaluation of the surface roughness of archwires was performed by means of an atomic force microscope in contact mode. Three surface readouts were taken of each sample, analyzing areas of 20 × 20 μm. Each scan of the samples produced a readout of 512 lines, generating three-dimensional images of the wires. The analysis of variance statistical test was applied to prove significant variables (p > 0.05), with H₀ being rejected and H₁ accepted.

RESULTS

The Incognito brand showed the lowest surface roughness. The archwires of brands Adenta, Tecnident, Highland, and Ormco showed similar values among them, and all close to these obtained by the Incognito brand. The archwires of the Ebraces brand showed the highest surface roughness, with values being close to those of the G&H Brand.

CONCLUSION

There was a statistical difference in surface roughness of orthodontic archwires among the brands studied.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Companies should pay attention to the quality control of their materials, as these may directly affect the quality of orthodontic treatment.

Morphological investigation of various orthodontic lingual bracket slots using scanning electron microscopy and atomic force microscopy

Various labial and lingual orthodontic appliances with aesthetic materials have been developed due to an increased demand in aesthetic orthodontic treatment. However, there are few reports regarding the morphology of lingual orthodontic appliances. Therefore, this study evaluates the roughness of slot surfaces of various orthodontic lingual brackets using field emission scanning electron microscopy (FE-SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM). Three types of stainless steel lingual brackets (Stealth^® , 7th Generation^® , and Clippy L^® ) and one gold lingual bracket (Incognito™) with a slot size of 0.018 inches × 0.025 inches (0.457 × 0.635 mm² ) were selected as representative lingual materials. Both FE-SEM and AFM examinations showed that the Stealth^® and Clippy L^® brackets had the lowest surface roughness, while the 7th Generation^® bracket had the highest surface roughness. There was a significant difference in surface morphology between the types of lingual brackets, even when composed of the same material. The surface roughness of the bracket slot was dependent on the manufacturing process or surface polishing process rather than the fundamental properties of the bracket materials. There was no significant difference in the mean surface roughness of the slot floor between gold and stainless steel lingual brackets. These findings suggest that, although the gold lingual bracket is very expensive, it has great potential for use in patients with nickel allergy.

Influence of ligation method on friction resistance of lingual brackets with different second-order angulations: an in vitro study

Objective:

To evaluate stainless steel archwire static friction in active and passive self-ligating lingual and conventional brackets with second-order angulations.

Methods:

Two conventional lingual brackets for canines (STb light/Ormco; PSWb/Tecnident), and two self-ligating brackets, one active (In-Ovation L/GAC) and the other passive (3D/ Forestadent), were evaluated. A stainless steel archwire was used at 0°, 3° and 5° angulations. Metal ligatures, conventional elastic ligatures, and low friction elastic ligatures were also tested. A universal testing machine applied friction between brackets and wires, simulating sliding mechanics, to produce 2-mm sliding at 3 mm/minute speed.

Results:

Two-way analysis of variance demonstrated a significant effect of the interaction between brackets and angulations (p < 0.001). Tukey test indicated that the highest frictional resistance values were observed at 5° angulation for In-Ovation L, PSWb bracket with non conventional ligature, and STb bracket with metal ligature. As for 3D, PSWb with conventional or metal ligatures, and STb brackets with non conventional ligature, showed significantly lower static frictional resistance with 0° angulation. At 0° angulation, STb brackets with metal ties, In-Ovation L brackets and 3D brackets had the lowest frictional resistance.

Conclusions:

As the angulation increased from 0° to 3°, static friction resistance increased. When angulation increased from 3° to 5°, static friction resistance increased or remained the same. Self-ligating 3D and In-Ovation L brackets, as well as conventional STb brackets, seem to be the best option when sliding mechanics is used to perform lingual orthodontic treatment.

Stiffness comparison of mushroom and straight SS and TMA lingual archwires

Background

The aim of this study is to investigate the relative stiffness of straight and mushroom lingual archwires of different diameters, cross sections and alloys, plotting their load/deflection graphs and using a modified three-point bending test.

Methods

Fujita’s mushroom archwires and straight lingual archwires of different diameters, cross sections and alloys were derived by a virtual set-up of an equal malocclusion and were cut at their straight distal portion. These distal portions were tested using a modified three-point bending test by an Instron 4467 dynamometer and the forces, were exerted at 1-mm deflection and were compared on each resulting load/deflection curve by means of ANOVA (p < 0.05).

Results

All upper lingual mushroom wires exerted significantly lower forces than the straight wire. Lower mushroom archwires were stiffer than their upper counterparts, which were longer and featured inset bends. In the lower arch, similar levels of forces were recorded for the two types of wire. Load-deflection curves were higher for the straight wires, and stiffness increased proportionally with their diameter.

Conclusions

The stiffness of an archwire is a function of its diameter, length and the alloy it is made from. In lower lingual wires, there is little difference in stiffness between mushroom and straight wires, but in upper wires, the straight version is considerably stiffer. The greater bearing effect exhibited by the straight wire in the working and finishing phases makes it less susceptible to bowing effect and therefore preferable for sliding mechanics during en masse retraction, particularly in the upper arch.

Frictional property comparisons of conventional and self-ligating lingual brackets according to tooth displacement during initial leveling and alignment: an in vitro mechanical study

Objective

We evaluated the effects of tooth displacement on frictional force when conventional ligating lingual brackets (CL-LBs), CL-LBs with a narrow bracket width, and self-ligating lingual brackets (SL-LBs) were used with initial leveling and alignment wires.

Methods

CL-LBs (7th Generation), CL-LBs with a narrow bracket width (STb), and SL-LBs (In-Ovation L) were tested under three tooth displacement conditions: no displacement (control); a 2-mm palatal displacement (PD) of the maxillary right lateral incisor (MXLI); and a 2-mm gingival displacement (GD) of the maxillary right canine (MXC) (nine groups, n = 7 per group). A stereolithographic typodont system and artificial saliva were used. Static and kinetic frictional forces (SFF and KFF, respectively) were measured while drawing a 0.013-inch copper-nickel-titanium archwire through brackets at 0.5 mm/min for 5 minutes at 36.5℃.

Results

The In-Ovation L exhibited lower SFF under control conditions and lower KFF under all displacement conditions than the 7th Generation and STb (all p < 0.001). No significant difference in SFF existed between the In-Ovation L and STb for a 2-mm GD of the MXC and 2-mm PD of the MXLI. A 2-mm GD of the MXC produced higher SFF and KFF than a 2-mm PD of the MXLI in all brackets (all p < 0.001).

Conclusions

CL-LBs with narrow bracket widths exhibited higher KFF than SL-LBs under tooth displacement conditions. CL-LBs and ligation methods should be developed to produce SFF and KFF as low as those in SL-LBs during the initial and leveling stage.

Evaluation of friction produced by self-ligating, conventional and Barbosa Versatile brackets

Abstract Introduction The Barbosa Versatile bracket design may provide lower frictional force and greater sliding. However, no in vitro studies have shown its sliding mechanisms and frictional resistance, particularly in comparison with other self-ligating or conventional brackets. Objective To compare the frictional resistance among self-ligating brackets (EasyClip/ Aditek, Damon MX/ Ormco and In Ovation R/ GAC); conventional brackets (Balance Roth/ GAC, and Roth Monobloc/ Morelli); and Barbosa Versatile bracket (Barbosa Versatile/ GAC) with different angles and arch wires. Material and method Brackets were tested with the 0.014", 0.018", 0.019"×0.025" and 0.021"×0.025" stainless steel wires, with 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20 degree angulations. Tying was performed with elastomeric ligature for conventional and Barbosa Versatile brackets, or with a built-in clip system of the self-ligating brackets. A universal testing machine was used to obtain sliding strength and friction value readouts between brackets and wires. Result Three-way factorial ANOVA 4×5×6 (brackets × angulation × wire) and Tukey tests showed statistically significant differences for all factors and all interactions (p<0.0001). Static frictional resistance showed a lower rate for Barbosa Versatile bracket and higher rates for Roth Monobloc and Balance brackets. Conclusion The lowest frictional resistance was obtained with the Barbosa Versatile bracket and self-ligating brackets in comparison with the conventional type. Increasing the diameter of the wires increased the frictional resistance. Smaller angles produced less frictional resistance.

In vitro assessment of competency for different lingual brackets in sliding mechanics

AIM

To determine the static frictional resistance of different lingual brackets at different second order angulations when coupled with stainless steel (SS) archwire in dry and wet conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Using a modified jig, frictional resistance was evaluated under different conditions for a total of 270 upper premolar lingual brackets (0.018″ × 0.025″ - conventional - 7(th) generation and STb, self-ligating - evolution) with no in-built tip or torque together with 0.016″ × 0.022″ straight length SS archwires. For conventional brackets, the archwire was secured with 0.008″ preformed SS short ligature ties.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

One way analysis of variance with Tukey HSD as post-hoc test was applied for degree wise and bracket wise comparison within dry condition and wet condition. For pair wise comparison Student's t-test was used.

RESULTS

Under both conditions the static frictional resistance is significantly higher for self-ligating brackets at 0°, while at 5° and 10° it is higher for 7(th) generation brackets. Statistically, significant difference does not exist at 0° between conventional brackets and the same was found at 5° and 10° between STb and self-ligating brackets. With an increase in second order angulations, all the evaluated samples exhibited an increased frictional value. Wet condition samples obtained a higher value than their corresponding dry condition.

CONCLUSION

The self-ligating bracket evaluated in this in vitro study is not beneficial in reducing friction during en-mass retraction due to its interactive clip type.

Frictional resistance exerted by different lingual and labial brackets: an in vitro study

Background

Although much has been written on the implications of friction generated between orthodontic archwires and labial brackets, information on lingual brackets is still limited. Hence, we set out to investigate the frictional resistance exerted by different lingual and labial brackets, including both conventional and self-ligating designs. The effect of various factors, namely bracket/base width, slot size, inter-bracket distance, and first- (ΘcI) and second-order (ΘcII) critical contact angles were evaluated and compared.

Methods

A plaster model of a pretreatment oral cavity was replicated to provide 18 (9 upper and 9 lower) identical versions. The anterior segments of each were taken, and the canine and lateral and central incisors were mounted with either lingual (7th Generation, STb, New STb, In-Ovation L, ORJ) or labial (Mini-Mono, Mini Diamond, G&H Ceramic) brackets. Mechanical friction tests were performed on each type of bracket using a universal testing machine. The maximum force necessary to displace NiTi wires of two different diameters (0.012, 0.014) was measured, using both elastic and metal ligatures with conventional brackets.

Results

The frictional force necessary to displace the wires increased as the diameter of the wire increased in all tested brackets (p < 0.01). Friction was significantly higher (p < 0.001) with elastic ligatures, as compared with metal ones, in all conventional brackets. In the lower lingual group, significantly lower friction was generated at conventional lingual New STb brackets (p < 0.01) and ORJ lingual brackets (p < 0.05) than at self-ligating In-Ovation L lingual brackets. A significant statistical correlation between (ΘcI) and friction was detected in the lower labial bracket group.

Conclusions

Friction resistance is influenced not only by the bracket type, type of ligation, and wire diameter but also by geometric differences in the brackets themselves.