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, Masahiro Iijima

Keywords : Friction, Lingual orthodontics, Self-ligating bracket

Citation Information : Zuñiga-Heredia EE, Muguruma T, Kawamura N, Iijima M. 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; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


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.

PDF Share
  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

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.