The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2011 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Frictional Resistance between Orthodontic Brackets and Archwire: An in vitro Study

Avinash Kumar, Nadeem Husain

Citation Information : Kumar A, Husain N. Frictional Resistance between Orthodontic Brackets and Archwire: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011; 12 (2):91-99.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1015

Published Online: 00-04-2011

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2011; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The purpose of this investigation was to determine the kinetic frictional resistance offered by stainless steel and Titanium bracket used in combination with rectangular stainless steel wire during in vitro translatory displacement of brackets.

Materials and methods

In this study. Brackets: (All brackets used had a torque of – 7° and an angulation of 0°): (1) Dynalock (Unitek) 0.018” slot, 3.3 mm bracket width, (2) Mini Uni-Twin (Unitek) 0.018” slot, 1.6 mm bracket width, (3) Ultra-Minitrim (Dentaurum) 0.022” slot 3.3 mm bracket width, (4) Titanium (Dentaurum) 0.022” slot, 3.3 mm bracket width. WIRES: (1) 0.016 × 0.022” stainless steel (Dentaurum), (2) 0.017 × 0.025’'stainless steel (Unitek), (3) 0.018 × 0.025” stainless steel (Dentaurum), elastomeric modules (Ortho Organisers), 0. 009” stainless steel ligature wires, hooks made of 0.021 × 0.025” stainless steel wires, super glue to bond the hooks to the base of the bracket, acetone to condition the bracket and wires before testing and artificial saliva. Brackets were moved along the wire by means of an Instron universal testing machine (1101) and forces were measured by a load cell. All values were recorded in Newtons and then converted into gms (1N-102 gm). 200 gm was then subtracted from these values to find out the frictional force for each archwire/bracket combination. For each archwire/ bracket combination three readings were taken under wet and dry condition and also with stainless steel ligature and elastomeric modules separately.

Results

The results showed that narrow brackets generated more friction than wider brackets. Frictional force was directly proportional to wire dimension. Titanium brackets generated more friction than stainless steel brackets. Archwire and bracket ligated with elastomeric module generated more friction than when ligated with stainless steel ligature wire. Frictional forces in the wet condition were greater than in the dry condition for all archwire to bracket combinations.

Conclusion

Frictional force was seen to be inversely proportional to bracket width, frictional force was inversely proportional to bracket width, and in the wet condition were greater than in the dry condition for all archwire to bracket combinations.

Clinical significance

This study of friction is its role in lessening the force actually received by a tooth from an active component such as a spring, loop or elastic. Hence greater applied force is needed to move a tooth with a bracket archwire combination demonstrating high magnitudes of friction compared with one with a low frictional value.

How to cite this article

Husain N, Kumar A. Frictional Resistance between Orthodontic Brackets and Archwire: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2011;12(2):91-99.


PDF Share
  1. Evaluation of friction in 0.022” × 0.028” standard edgewise bracket in vitro study. J Biomech 1970.
  2. The effect of artificial saliva on frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwire. Br J Orthod 1995;22:41-46.
  3. A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic bracket and archwire. Am J Orthod 1980;78:593-609.
  4. A comparison of the frictional characteristics of five initial alignment wires and stainless steel brackets at three brackets to wire angulations. Am J Orthod 1994;21:15-22.
  5. Frictional forces between bracket and archwire. Am J Orthod 1989;96:397-404.
  6. The ex vivo effect of ligation technique on static frictional resistance of SS brackets and archwire. BJO 1995;22: 145-53.
  7. A comparison of frictional force during simulated canine retraction of a continuous edgewise archwire. Am J Orthod 1986;90:199-203.
  8. A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwire. Am J Orthod 1991;100: 513-22.
  9. Comparative friction of orthodontic wires under dry and wet conditions. Am J Orthod 1986;89:485-91.
  10. Frictional changes in force values caused by saliva substitution. Am J Orthod 1987;91:316-20.
  11. Effect of salivary viscosity on frictional coefficient of orthodontic archwire bracket couples. Journal of Materials Science 1995;6:390-95.
  12. Comparison of the frictional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations in dry and wet state. Angle Orthod 1991;61:223-30.
  13. The dynamic frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwire. Am J Orthod 1994;8: 106-31.
  14. Static frictional force and surface roughness of nickel-titanium archwires. Am J Orthod 1991;100:341-48.
  15. Evaluation of friction between edgewise SS brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod 1990;26:98-117.
  16. Frictional force in fixed appliance. Am J Orthod 1989;96:249-54.
  17. Frictional resistance of ceramic and brackets. Am J Orthod 1990;98:398-403.
  18. Evalution of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracketarchwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999116336-45.
  19. A comparative study of conventional ligation and selfligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:472-80.
  20. 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.
  21. Ligation properties of a self-ligating composite bracket: An in vitro study (thesis). Göteborg, Sweden: Göteborg University 2004.
  22. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:721-28.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.