Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
464
Stefanos et al
Articolo26 was used to simulate the clinical use of orthodontic brackets (Fig 1). The simulation device consisted
of a special fixture mounted to the base of a mechanical
testing machine (model 4206, Instron, Canton, Mass).
The fixture held a bracket slot that allowed for reproducible bracket positioning and was attached to an angulation dial. A test archwire was suspended from a collet
connected to the force transducer and the transverse
beam of the testing machine. The orthodontic device
was modified for self-ligating brackets by removing
0.010 in of ligature wire attached to a piston assembly
to transmit a normal force. The weight of the collet
holding the archwire was reduced to minimize noise
in data collection.
The brackets were cemented onto the simulation device bracket slot and initially set to be passive (0 ) in the
second order via the adjustable angulation dial. All
tested brackets had 7 of torque and 0 of secondorder angulations, with the exception of Damon 3mx,
which has 2 of distal offset. The 2 distal offset of
the Damon 3mx bracket was compensated for by using
the angulation dial. All angulations and torque values of
the brackets remained fixed during data collection.
During testing, the transverse beam with the collet
holding a 0.019 3 0.025-in stainless steel archwire
was lifted up to draw the archwire through the bracket.
The drawing force was monitored by the machines load
cell (10 N) and transmitted to computer software
(version 2.0, Measure, National Instruments, Austin,
Tex) for plotting drawing force vs distance charts.
Maxillary right first premolar brackets with 0.022-in
slots and prescriptions as described above were used.
Each archwire-bracket couple was cleaned with 95%
ethanol and compressed air just before evaluation. All
testing was done in the dry state in prevailing air at
21 C. Each test consisted of 1 bracket and 1 archwire
at 0 angulation. Two examiners (N.T. and S.S.) verified
proper mounting of the brackets under 10-times magnification. The static frictional force was measured as the
initial rise or peak force required to initiate movement
Stefanos et al
Mean
(g)
SD
Median
(g)
Minimum
(g)
Maximum
(g)
Damon 3mx
In-Ovation R
In-Ovation C
SmartClip
SPEED
Synergy R
8.6
38.1
33.4
30.3
83.1
23.8
0.4
1.6
1.2
2.3
2.5
1.5
8.6
38.2
33.3
30.3
82.6
23.8
7.9
34.2
30.3
26.8
79.3
21.4
9.3
41.6
35.3
36.0
89.3
27.8
465
Table II. Descriptive statistics and statistical comparisons of kinetic frictional forces
Bracket
Mean
(g)
SD
Median
(g)
Minimum
(g)
Maximum
(g)
Damon 3mx
In-Ovation R
In-Ovation C
SmartClip
SPEED
Synergy R
6.0
34.1
28.8a
30.1a
81.7
21.8
0.9
2.1
1.4
1.3
2.9
3.2
5.8
34.1
28.8
30.1
81.7
21.8
5.1
31.4
26.6
28.5
77.8
16.9
7.4
36.4
30.1
31.6
85.5
25.2
All mean static friction values are significantly different from each
other (P \0.05).
Mean kinetic friction values with the same superscript letter are not
significantly different (P \0.05).
of the wire through the bracket (Fig 2). The peak force
was halved and defined as static frictional force.27 A
new bracket-archwire combination was used for each
test. Each test was performed 30 times.
The drawing force required to maintain movement
beyond the point of initial displacement was averaged
and then halved and recorded as the kinetic frictional
force. The archwire was drawn through the bracket
a distance of 20 mm at a speed of 1 cm per minute for
determination of kinetic friction. Data were obtained
at a rate of 5 scans per second for 2 minutes.
The 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the
Dunn multiple comparison tests were performed with
statistical software (version 3.5, SigmaStat, Systat Software, Point Richmond, Calif). The level of statistical
significance was set at P \0.05.
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
466
Stefanos et al
compared with active self-ligating brackets when coupled with 0.019 3 0.025-in stainless steel wire. The
Damon3mx bracket has significantly the lowest static
and kinetic frictional forces, and SPEED has the highest
frictional force of the brackets investigated. The simulation device and low threshold load cell provided data
with lower measurement variations when comparing
differences in friction of sliding.
We thank 3M Unitek, GAC International, Strite
Industries, Ormco, and Rocky Mountain Orthodontics
for providing the materials tested in this study; Robert
L. Vanarsdall, Jr, Department of Orthodontics, School
of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, for support and advice in designing the research; Alex Radin,
Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
School of Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, and
Laurence Articolo, orthodontist of Blackwood, NJ for
their technical expertise in the construction of the sliding
simulation device.
REFERENCES
1. Gostovich LT. The influence of bracket design on resistance to
sliding [thesis]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania; 2003.
2. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Ricciardi A, Scribante A, Klersy C,
Auricchio F. 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.
3. Schumacher HA, Bourauel C, Drescher D. The effect of the
ligature on the friction between bracket and arch. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1990;51:106-16.
4. Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and
function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:119-40.
5. Miles PG. Smart Clip versus conventional twin brackets for initial
alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005;21:123-7.
6. Miles PG. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during
en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:223-5.
7. Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie DA. Comparative in vitro study of
the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets
and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with
elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:589-96.
8. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now?
J Orthod 2003;30:262-73.
9. Franchi L, Baccetti T, Camporesi M, Barbato E. Forces released
during sliding mechanics with passive self-ligating brackets or
nonconventional elastomeric ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2008;133:87-90.
10. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effect of archwire size and material on
the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with secondorder angulation in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2002;122:295-305.
11. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of self-ligating
brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with
second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:361-70.
12. 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
Stefanos et al
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
467