The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Correlating Frictional Forces Generated by Different Bracket Types during Sliding and Surface Topography Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Optical Profilometer

Anisa H AlBadr, Nabeel F Talic

Keywords : Brackets, Ceramic, Kinetic friction, Monocrystalline, Orthodontics, Polycrystalline, Static friction, Surface roughness

Citation Information : AlBadr AH, Talic NF. Correlating Frictional Forces Generated by Different Bracket Types during Sliding and Surface Topography Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Optical Profilometer. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (1):41-51.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3625

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-02-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The study aims to correlate the frictional forces (FF) of four different types of commercially available ceramic brackets to their surface topography. Materials and methods: Two monocrystalline (MC) brackets (CLEAR™, Adanta, Germany; Inspire ICE™, Ormco, USA), one polycrystalline (PC) bracket (Symetri Clear™, Ormco, USA), one clear hybrid esthetic bracket (DISCREET™, Adanta, Germany), and a stainless-steel (SS) bracket (Victory™, 3M Unitek, USA) served as control. Both static friction (SF) and kinetic friction (KF) were recorded during sliding using an Instron universal machine in dry settings. The bracket slot surface topography was evaluated. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) and a profilometer machine were used for assessment before and after sliding. Results: Frictional forces values during sliding were as follows in descending order; Inspire ICE™, CLEAR™, DISCREET™, Symetri Clear™, and, lastly, Victory™. Also, DISCREET™ scored the highest in surface roughness (Sa) values followed by Symetri Clear™. None of the correlations were statistically significant. Conclusion: Frictional forces produced during sliding were not always directly related to surface roughness. Monocrystalline ceramic brackets appeared to have the greatest FF and a low surface roughness. Furthermore, DISCREET™ scored a very low frictional value comparable to metal brackets yet showed the highest surface roughness. Metal brackets exhibited the greatest surface smoothness before sliding and the least SF. Clinical significance: Predicting the FFs produced during sliding mechanics would help the practitioner while choosing the bracket system to be used, and while planning the treatment mechanics, how much force to deliver, and how much tooth movement to expect.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Liu X, Lin J, Ding P. Changes in the surface roughness and friction coefficient of orthodontic bracket slots before and after treatment. Scanning 2013;35(4):265–272. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21060.
  2. Nishio DDS, Motta A, Elias C, et al. In vitro evaluation of frictional forces between archwires and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:56–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.01.005.
  3. Pillai AR, Gangadharan A, Kumar S, et al. Comparison of the frictional resistance between archwire and different bracket system: An in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2014;6(Suppl. 1):S150–S155. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.137429.
  4. Agarwal CO, Vakil KK, Mahamuni A, et al. Evaluation of surface roughness of the bracket slot floor: A 3D perspective study. Prog Orthod 2016;17:3. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0116-2.
  5. Keith O, Jones SP, Davies EH. The influence of bracket material, ligation force and wear on frictional resistance of orthodontic brackets. Br J Orthod 1993;20(2):109–115. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.20.2.109.
  6. Proffit WR, Fields H, Larson B, et al. Contemporary Orthodontics. 6th edition. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2019, p. 744.
  7. Nanda R. Biomechanics in Clinical Orthodontics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company; 1997.
  8. Guerrero AP, Filho OG, Tanaka O, et al. Evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets and archwires of different alloys compared with metal brackets. Braz Oral Res 2010;24(1):40–45. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242010000100007.
  9. Tanne K, Matsubara S, Shibaguchi T, et al. Wire friction from ceramic brackets during simulated canine retraction. Angle Orthod 1991; 61(4):285–290. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0285:WFFCBD> 2.0.CO;2.
  10. Pasha A, Vishwakarma S, Narayan A, et al. Comparison of frictional forces generated by a new ceramic bracket with the conventional brackets using unconventional and conventional ligation system and the self-ligating brackets: An in vitro study. J Int Health 2015;7(9): 108–113. PMID: 26435628.
  11. Khambay B, Millett D, Creanor S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004;26(3):327–332. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/26.3.327.
  12. Khambay B, Millett D, McHugh S. Archwire seating forces produced by different ligation methods and their effect on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2005;27(3):302–308. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji008.
  13. Arash V, Rabiee M, Rakhshan V, et al. In vitro evaluation of frictional forces of two ceramic orthodontic brackets versus a stainless steel bracket in combination with two types of archwires. J Orthod Sci 2015;4(2):42–46. DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.156028.
  14. Hassanen AM, Elgezawy SES, Masoud MA. Evaluation of frictional resistance for different types of tooth colored orthodontic brackets (An in-vitro study). Al-Azhar Journal of Dental Science 2022;25(1): 91–98. DOI: 10.21608/AJDSM.2021.62601.1165.
  15. Pimentel R, Oliveira R, Chaves M, et al. Evaluation of the friction force generated by monocristalyne and policristalyne ceramic brackets in sliding mechanics. Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18(1):121–127. DOI: 10.1590/s2176-94512013000100023.
  16. Lee GJ, Park KH, Park YG, et al. A quantitative AFM analysis of nano-scale surface roughness in various orthodontic brackets. Micron 2010;41(7):775–782. DOI: 10.1016/j.micron.2010.05.013.
  17. Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL. Orthodontics Current Principles and Techniques, 5th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier/Mosby; 2012.
  18. Choi SH, Kang DY, Hwang CJ. Surface roughness of three types of modern plastic bracket slot floors and frictional resistance. Angle Orthod 2014;84(1):177–183. DOI: 10.2319/030313-179.1.
  19. Alsubaie M, Talic N. Comparison of the static frictional resistance and surface topography of ceramic orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study. Australian Orthod J 2017;33(5):24–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.03.006.
  20. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, et al. Evaluation of friction of conventional and metal-insert ceramic brackets in various bracket–archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthoped 2003;124(4):403–409. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03) 00501-8.
  21. Salman KA, Al Hafidh NN. Evaluation of frictional forces between different aesthetic brackets and arch wires during leveling and alignment stage. Al-Rafidain Dent J 2015;15(2):438–443. DOI: 10.33899/RDEN.2015.160880.
  22. Jian H, Heng L, Li C, et al. Friction of stainless steel, nickel–titanium alloy, and beta-titanium alloy archwires in two commonly used orthodontic brackets. J Mech Med Biol 2012;11(4). DOI: 10.1142/S0219519411004149.
  23. Richard P, McLaughlin JCB, Hugo J, et al. Systemized Orthodontic Treatment Mechanics. Edinburgh: Mosby; 2001.
  24. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Ricciardi A, et al. Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket–archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124(4):395–402. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00504-3.
  25. Cha JY, Kim KS, Hwang CJ. Friction of conventional and silica-insert ceramic brackets in various bracket–wire combinations. Angle Orthod 2007;77(1):100–107. DOI: 10.2319/092705-333R.1.
  26. Bazakidou E, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG Jr, et al. Evaluation of frictional resistance in esthetic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112(2):138–144. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70238-5.
  27. Saunders CR, Kusy RP. Surface topography and frictional characteristics of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106(1):76–87. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70024-9.
  28. Downing A, McCabe JF, Gordon PH. The effect of artificial saliva on the frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Br J Orthod 1995;22(1):41–46. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.22.1.41.
  29. Waly G. Tie-wing fracture and frictional resistance of monocrystalline versus polycrystalline ceramic brackets. Egypt Dent J 2013;59:2579–2590. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326678314.
  30. Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Comparison of frictional resistance in titanium and stainless steel brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(3):271–274. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70237-4.
  31. Omana HM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Frictional properties of metal and ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1992;26(7):425–432. PMID: 1430193.
  32. Winchester L. Direct orthodontic bonding to porcelain: An in vitro study. Br J Orthod 1991;18(4):299–308. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.18.4.299.
  33. Doshi UH, Bhad–Patil WA. Static frictional force and surface roughness of various bracket and wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139(1):74–79. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.02.031.
  34. 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;61(4):293–302. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0293:COTFCF>2.0.CO;2.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.