The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Frictional Forces of Three Types of Lingual Appliance with Self-ligating Mechanisms

Enrique E Zuñiga-Heredia, Takeshi Muguruma, Naohiko Kawamura

Keywords : Friction, Lingual orthodontics, Self-ligating bracket

Citation Information : Zuñiga-Heredia EE, Muguruma T, Kawamura N. Frictional Forces of Three Types of Lingual Appliance with Self-ligating Mechanisms. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (6):605-609.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3093

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 09-08-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: The present study compared the frictional forces of three types of self-ligating lingual appliances. Materials and methods: The lingual appliances (2D, Forestadent; Alias, Ormco; and Clippy L, Tomy International) consisted of a self-ligating bracket (second premolar) and two self-ligating tubes (first and second molars) bonded to a stainless steel jig and attached to a “drawing-friction tester.” Full-size and non-full-size stainless steel archwires were tested, and the static and kinetic friction acting on six lingual appliance/wire combinations was estimated (n = 5). Three-dimensional micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis of each premolar bracket was performed. The frictional forces were compared between the bracket/wire combinations using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests. Results: The Alias and Clippy L bracket/wire combinations had greater contact between the wire surfaces and bracket slots compared to the 2D bracket/wire combination. For all lingual appliances, the static and kinetic frictional forces were significantly higher for the full-size than non-full-size archwire. The 2D bracket, which had a wider outer wing, had less frictional force than the other appliances. The Alias, which had a narrower outer wing, had a significantly lower frictional force than the Clippy L. Conclusions: Frictional force was significantly higher for heavier full-size bracket/archwire combinations than for non-full-size archwires. The 2D bracket had lower frictional force due to its archwire-holding mechanism. The outer wing width may influence the frictional resistance. Clinical significance: The frictional forces of self-ligating lingual appliances vary, and bracket design and archwire size may influence the frictional performance.

  1. Fujita K. New orthodontic treatment with lingual bracket and mushroom arch wire appliance. Am J Orthod 1979;76(6):657–675. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(79)90211-2.
  2. Khosravi R. Biomechanics in lingual orthodontics: what the future holds. Semin Orthod 2018;24(3):363–371. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2018.08.008.
  3. Ye L, Kula KS. Status of lingual orthodontics. Wold J Orhod 2006;7(4):361–368. PMID: 17190229.
  4. Papageorgiou SN, Gölz L, Jäger A, et al. Lingual vs. labial fixed orthodontic appliances: systematic review and meta-analysis of treatment effects. Eur J Oral Sci 2016;124(2):105–118. DOI: 10.1111/eos.12250.
  5. Kurz C, Bennett R. Extraction cases and the lingual appliance. J Am Ling Orthod Assoc 1988;3:10–13.
  6. Kusy RP, Tobin EJ, Whitley JQ, et al. Frictional coefficients of ion-implanted alumina against ion-implanted beta-titanium in the low load, low velocity, single pass regime. Dent Mater 1992;8(3):167–172. DOI:10.1016/0109-5641(92)90076-o.
  7. Burrow SJ. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: a critical review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(4):442–447. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.023.
  8. 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(2):199–208. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)73<167:IOSSIO>2.0.CO;2.
  9. Muguruma T, Iijima M, Kawaguchi K, et al. Effects of sp2/sp3 ratio and hydrogen content on in vitro bending and frictional performance of DLC-coated orthodontic stainless steels. Coatings 2018;8(6):199. DOI: 10.3390/coatings8060199.
  10. Thorstenson G, Kusy R. Influence of stainless steel inserts on the resistance to sliding of esthetic brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet states. Angle Ortho 2003;73(2):167–175. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2003)73<167:IOSSIO>2.0.CO;2.
  11. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006;76(3):480-485. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0480:ACTODV]2.0.CO;2.
  12. Thorstenson G, Kusy R. Comparison of resistance to sliding between difference self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and saliva state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;121(5):472-482. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.121562.
  13. Park KH, Yoon HJ, Kim SJ, et al. Surface roughness analysis of ceramic bracket slot using atomic force microscope. Korean J Orthod 2010;40(5):294–303. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2010.40.5.294.
  14. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket configuration and materials. Semin Orthod 1997;3(3):166–177. DOI: 10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80067-9.
  15. Kusy R. Withley J. Assessment of second order clearances between orthodontic archwires and brackets slots via critical contact angle of binding. Angle Orthod 1999;69(1):71–80. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0071:AOSOCB>2.3.CO;2.
  16. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Resistance to sliding of orthodontic appliances in the dry and wet states: influence of archwire alloy, inter bracket distances and bracket engagement. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;52(4):797–811. DOI: 10.1002/1097-4636(20001215)52:4<797::AID-JBM25>3.0.CO;2-9.
  17. Henao SP, Kusy RP. Frictional evaluations of dental typodont models using four self-ligating designs and a conventional design. Angle Orthod 2005;75(1):75–85. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)075<0075:FEODTM> 2.0.CO;2.
  18. Park JH, Lee YK, Lim BS, et al. Frictional forces between lingual brackets and archwires measured by a friction tester. Angle Orthod 2004;74(6):816–824. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0816:FFBLBA>2.0.CO;2.
  19. Moran KL. Relative wire stiffness due to lingual versus labial inter bracket distance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92(1):24–32. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90292-7.
  20. Geron S. Self-ligating brackets in lingual orhtodontics. Semin Orthod 2008;14(1):64–72. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2007.12.007.
  21. Iijima M, Zinelis S, Papageorgiou SN, et al. Orthodontic brackets. In: Eliades T, Brantley W, editors. Orthodontic application of biomaterials; a clinical guide. Sawston, UK: Woodhead publishing; 2017. p. 75–96.
  22. Andreasen GF, Quevedo FR. Evaluation of friction forces in the 0.022 x 0.028 edgewise bracket in vitro. J Biomech 1970;3(2):151–160. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(70)90002-3.
  23. Redlich M, Mayer Y, Harari D, et al. In vitro study of frictional forces during sliding mechanics of “reduced-friction”brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(1):69–73. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00238-5.
  24. Lombardo L, Wierusz W, Toscano D, et al. Frictional resistance exerted by different lingual and labial brackets: an in vitro study. Prog Orthod 2013;14(37):3–10. DOI: 10.1186/2196-1042-14-37.
  25. Pandis N, Miles PG, Eliades T. Efficiency and treatment outcome with self-ligating brackets. Wiley-Backwell. Oxford. In: Eliades T, Pandis N, editors. Self-ligation in orthodontics; 2009. p. 69–84.
  26. Huang TH, Luk HS, Hsu YC, et al. An in vitro comparison of the frictional force between archwires and self-ligating brackets of passive and active types. Eur J Orthod 2012;34(5):625–632. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr065.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.