The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessment on the Precision of the Orthodontic Bracket Slot Dimensions Using Micro-computed Tomography (Micro-CT)

Nasser D Alqahtani

Keywords : Micro-CT, Orthodontic bracket, Self-ligating brackets, Slot dimension

Citation Information : Alqahtani ND. Assessment on the Precision of the Orthodontic Bracket Slot Dimensions Using Micro-computed Tomography (Micro-CT). J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (1):27-33.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3047

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 19-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the precision of the orthodontic bracket slot dimensions of 0.022 inch and to compare them with those of the manufacturers’ specifications. Materials and methods: The slots of upper-right central incisor brackets (n = 5) from 11 commercial bracket systems of three different manufacturers (3M Unitek: Victory Mini Metal, Clarity, SmartClip, Clarity SL; ORMCO/SYBRON: Mini Diamond Twin, Damon Q, Damon Clear; Dentsply/GAC: Ovation, Mystique, In-Ovation R, In-Ovation C) were measured. The orthodontic brackets were scanned using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT), and the bracket slots were measured using micro-CT images. The slot was measured at four different surfaces (occlusal, gingival, base, and face) for both mesial and distal sites. Data were subjected to ANOVA and unpaired t-tests. A p-value of ≤0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: All brackets had slot dimensions that were significantly larger (p < 0.05) than the stated 0.022 inch. 3M-victory were 11.99% larger (0.02509 inch) and the closest to the stated dimension and the ORM-Damon C were 24.07% larger (0.02948 inch) than the quoted slot size of 0.022 inch. Comparison between mesial and distal sides showed that 91% of the bracket slots were asymmetrical at their bases and 100% asymmetrical at their faces. All of the bracket system showed divergent walls from base to face with values ranging from 1.96 (3M-SmartClip) to 26.58% (ORM-Damon C). Conclusion: The actual measurements of 11 bracket systems from three different manufacturers were more substantial than the manufacturers’ specifications, and the walls of the slots diverged from the bracket bases in all of the tested bracket system. Clinical significance: Orthodontic bracket slots vary significantly from that of the manufacturers’ specification. The orthodontist should anticipate such shortcomings and be able to modify treatment mechanics through additional wire bending in three spatial planes.


PDF Share
  1. Kalpakjian S, Schmid S, Sekar V. Manufacturing engineering and technology/Serope Kalpakjian, Illinois Institute of Technology, Steven R Schmid, The University of Notre Dame. 7th edition; 2013.
  2. Gioka C, Eliades T. Materials-induced variation in the torque expression of preadjusted appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(3):323–328. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.02.007.
  3. Lee Y, Lee DY, Kim YJ. Dimensional accuracy of ceramic self-ligating brackets and estimates of theoretical torsional play. Angle Orthod 2016;86(5):804–809. DOI: 10.2319/092415-647.1.
  4. Urias D, Mustafa FIA. Anchorage control in bioprogressive vs straight-wire treatment. Angle Orthod 2005;75(6):987–992. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[987:ACIBVS]2.0.CO;2.
  5. Cash AC, Good SA, Curtis RV, et al. An evaluation of slot size in orthodontic brackets--are standards as expected? Angle Orthod 2004;74(4):450–453. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0450:AEOSSI>2.0.CO;2.
  6. Fischer-Brandies H, Orthuber W, Es-Souni M, et al.. Torque transmission between square wire and bracket as a function of measurement, form and hardness parameters. J Orofac Orthop 2000;61(4):258–265. DOI: 10.1007/s000560050011.
  7. Bhalla NB, Good SA, McDonald F, et al. Assessment of slot sizes in self-ligating brackets using electron microscopy. Aust Orthod J 2010;26(1):38–41.
  8. Major TW, Carey JP, Nobes DS, et al. Orthodontic bracket manufacturing tolerances and dimensional differences between select self-ligating brackets. J Dent Biomech 2010;2010:781321. DOI: 10.4061/2010/781321.
  9. Demling A, Dittmer MP, Schwestka-Polly R. Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems. Head Face Med 2009;5:27. DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-5-27.
  10. Meling TR, Odegaard J, Seqner D. On bracket slot height: a methodologic study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113(4): 387–393. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)80009-7.
  11. Siatkowski RE. Loss of anterior torque control due to variations in bracket slot and archwire dimensions. J Clin Orthod 1999;33(9):508–510.
  12. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Assessment of second-order clearances between orthodontic archwires and bracket slots via the critical contact angle for binding. Angle Orthod 1999;69(1):71–80. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0071:AOSOCB>2.3.CO;2.
  13. Abduo J, Elseyoufi M. Accuracy of intraoral scanners: a systematic review of influencing factors. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2018;26(3):101–121. DOI: 10.1922/EJPRD_01752Abduo21.
  14. Brown P, Wagner W, Choi H. Orthodontic bracket slot dimensions as measured from entire bracket series. Angle Orthod 2015;85(4):678–682. DOI: 10.2319/042814-307.1.
  15. Swain MV, Xue J. State of the art of Micro-CT applications in dental research. Int J Oral Sci 2009;1(4):177–188. DOI: 10.4248/IJOS09031.
  16. Acar B, Kamburoglu K, Tatar I, et al. Comparison of micro-computerized tomography and cone-beam computerized tomography in the detection of accessory canals in primary molars. Imaging Sci Dent 2015;45(4):205–211. DOI: 10.5624/isd.2015.45. 4.205.
  17. Tamminen IS, Isaksson H, Aula AS, et al. Reproducibility and agreement of micro-CT and histomorphometry in human trabecular bone with different metabolic status. J Bone Miner Metab 2011;29(4):442–448. DOI: 10.1007/s00774-010-0236-6.
  18. Dolci GS, Spohr AM, Zimmer ER, et al. Assessment of the dimensions and surface characteristics of orthodontic wires and bracket slots. Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18(2):69–75. DOI: 10.1590/s2176-94512013000200016.
  19. Khan T, Khan H, Mohsin S, et al. Manufacturer tolerance in mesial and distal slot height of 0.022-inch maxillary lateral incisor brackets. Pak Orthod J 2018;10(1):41–45.
  20. Lefebvre C, Saadaoui H, Olive J-M, et al. Variability of slot size in orthodontic brackets. Clin Exp Dent Res 2019;5(5):528–533. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.219.
  21. Meling TR, Odegaard J. On the variability of cross-sectional dimensions and torsional properties of rectangular nickel-titanium arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113(5):546–557.
  22. Morina E, Eliades T, Pandis N, et al. Torque expression of self-ligating brackets compared with conventional metallic, ceramic, and plastic brackets. Eur J Orthod 2008;30(3):233–238. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn005.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.