Citation Information :
Khanna P, Kumar RR, Sunda S, Miglani A, Panghal V, Arora N. Comparison of Frictional Resistance in Conventional Brackets with Different Stainless Steel Wires. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (9):1135-1139.
Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare static and kinetic friction of round (0.018”) and rectangular (0.019 × 0.025”) stainless steel (SS) wires of different brands with conventional preadjusted edgewise brackets.
Materials and methods: Maxillary canine and two bicuspids of 0.022 × 0.028” slot sized MBT prescription (Gemini, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, California) brackets were chosen. The wires selected were 0.018” SS (3M Unitek); 0.018” Australian wire (AJ Wilcock, UK), and 0.019 × 0.025” SS (3M Unitek). The testing was done on Instron 3382. A total of 30 test combinations with three wires were repeated 10 times. The static and kinetic friction was recorded in Newton. The kinetic friction was also recorded in Newton at 3, 5, 7, and 9 mm of movement. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and descriptive statistics were used for comparing the friction. To test the level of significance, multiple comparisons were used within wire in bracket by using post hoc test.
Results: Static friction was found to be greater than kinetic in all wires; 0.018” SS (3M) wire exhibited minimum static and kinetic friction; while 0.019 × 0.025” SS (3M) exhibited maximum static friction. Kinetic friction was similar in both 0.018” AJ Wilcock and 0.019 × 0.025” SS but greater than 0.018” SS (3M).
Conclusion: Least static and kinetic friction was exhibited by 0.018” SS (3M). Kinetic friction was similar in both 0.018” AJ Wilcock and 0.019 × 0.025” SS.
Clinical significance: The study concluded that 0.018” SS (3M) is better for individual canine retraction than the other wires used in the study because it has the least frictional resistance; 0.019 × 0.025” SS (3M) is a better wire for canine retraction than 0.018” AJ Wilcock as we can have a three-dimensional control over tooth movement. When torque control is not a prime requisite, then 0.018” SS (3M) can be used for retraction of incisors instead of 0.018” AJ Wilcock in severely proclined incisor cases.
Garner LD, Allai WW, Moore BK. A comparison of frictional forces during simulated canine retraction of a continuous edgewise arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986 Sep;90(3):199-203.
Proffit, WR.; Fields, HW.; Sarver, DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 4th ed. Chapter 10. St. Louis (MO): Mosby-Year Book Inc.; 2007. p. 375.
Budd S, Daskalogiannakis J, Tompson BD. A study of the frictional characteristics of four commercially available self-ligating bracket systems. Eur J Orthod 2008 Dec;30(6): 645-653.
Burrow SJ III. Critical appraisal of in vitro steady-state frictional resistance studies. Semin Orthod 2010 Dec;16(4):244-248.
Tidy DC. Frictional forces in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989 Sep;96(3):249-254.
Pacheco MR, Jansen WC, Oliveira DD. The role of friction in orthodontics. Dent Press J Orthod 2012 Mar-Apr;17(2): 170-177.
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 Nov;136(5):675-682.
Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. A comparison of different ligation methods on friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006 Nov;130(5):666-670.
Rizk MZ, Mohammed H, Ismael O, Bearn DR. Effectiveness of en masse versus two-step retraction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prog Orthod 2018 Jan;18(1):41.
Emile RP. Friction: an overview. Semin Orthod 2003 Dec;9(4): 218-222.
Reicheneder CA, Gedrange T, Berrisch S, Proff P, Baumert U, Faltermeier A, Muessig D. Conventionally ligated versus selfligating metal brackets—a comparative study. Eur J Orthod 2008 Dec;30(6):654-660.
Ireland AJ, Sherriff M, McDonald F. Effect of bracket and wire composition on frictional forces. Eur J Orthod 1991 Aug;13(4):322-328.
Andreasen GF, Quevedo FR. Evaluation of friction forces in the 0.022 × 0.028 edgewise bracket in vitro. J Biomech 1970 Mar;3(2):151-160.
Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Prewitt MJ. Comparison of the frictional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod 1991 Winter;61(4):293-302.
Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of selfligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod 1997 Nov;24(4):309-317.
Fourie Z, Ozcan M, Sandham A. Effect of dental arch convexity and type of archwire on frictional forces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009 Jul;136(1):14.e1-14.e7.
Taylor NG, Ison K. Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwires in the buccal segments. Angle Orthod 1996 Feb;66(3):215-222.
Kim TK, Kim KD, Baek SH. Comparison of frictional forces during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of self-ligating brackets and archwires with a custom-designed typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008 Feb;133(2):187.e15-187.e24.
Gandini P, Orsi L, Bertoncini C, Massironi S, Franchi L. In-vitro frictional forces generated by three different ligation methods. Angle Orthod 2008 Sep;78(5):917-921.
Acharya KA, Jayade VP. Metallurgic properties of stainless steel orthodontic archwires: a comparative study. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2005 Jan;18(2):125-136.
Gómez SL, Montoya Y, Garcia NL, Virgen AL, Botero JE. Comparison of frictional resistance among conventional, active and passive self-ligating brackets with different combinations of arch wires: a finite elements study. Acta Odontol Latinoam 2016 Sep;29(2):130-136.
Tecco S, Tete S, Festa F. Friction between archwires of different sizes, cross-section and alloy and brackets ligated with low-friction or conventional ligatures. Angle Orthod 2009 Jan;79(1):111-116.