Friction Behavior of Ceramic Injection-molded (CIM) Brackets

Overview

Journal J Orofac Orthop

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2016 May 5

PMID 27142040

Citations 3

Authors

Susanne Reimann

Christoph Bourauel

Anna Weber

Cornelius Dirk

Thomas Lietz

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: Bracket material, bracket design, archwire material, and ligature type are critical modifiers of friction behavior during archwire-guided movement of teeth. We designed this in vitro study to compare the friction losses of ceramic injection-molded (CIM) versus pressed-ceramic (PC) and metal injection-molded (MIM) brackets-used with different ligatures and archwires-during archwire-guided retraction of a canine.

Methods: Nine bracket systems were compared, including five CIM (Clarity™ and Clarity™ ADVANCED, both by 3M Unitek; discovery(®) pearl by Dentaurum; Glam by Forestadent; InVu by TP Orthodontics), two PC (Inspire Ice by Ormco; Mystique by DENTSPLY GAC), and two MIM (discovery(®) and discovery(®) smart, both by Dentaurum) systems. All of these were combined with archwires made of either stainless steel or fiberglass-reinforced resin (remanium(®) ideal arch or Translucent pearl ideal arch, both by Dentaurum) and with elastic ligatures or uncoated or coated stainless steel (all by Dentaurum). Archwire-guided retraction of a canine was simulated with a force of 0.5 N in the orthodontic measurement and simulation system (OMSS). Friction loss was determined by subtracting the effective orthodontic forces from the applied forces. Based on five repeated measurements performed on five brackets each, weighted means were calculated and evaluated by analysis of variance and a Bonferroni post hoc test with a significance level of 0.05.

Results: Friction losses were significantly (p < 0.05) higher (58-79 versus 20-30 %) for the combinations involving the steel versus the resin archwire in conjunction with the elastic ligature. The uncoated steel ligatures were associated with the lowest friction losses with Clarity™ (13 %) and discovery(®) pearl (16 %) on the resin archwire and the highest friction losses with Clarity™ ADVANCED (53 %) and Mystique (63 %) on the steel archwire. The coated steel ligatures were associated with friction losses similar to the uncoated steel ligatures on the steel archwire. Regardless of ligature types, mild signs of abrasion were noted on the resin archwire.

Conclusions: The lowest friction losses were measured with rounded ceramic brackets used with a stainless-steel ligature and the resin archwire. No critical difference to friction behavior was apparent between the various manufacturing technologies behind the bracket systems.

Citing Articles

Comparative evaluation of different debonding and reconditioning methods for orthodontic ceramic brackets regarding effectiveness for reuse : An in vitro study.

Grosch K, Meister J, Raval S, Fouda A, Bourauel C J Orofac Orthop. 2023; 86(1):11-23.

PMID: 37318554 PMC: 11753313. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-023-00469-z.

Comparison of Tie Wing Fracture Resistance of Differing Ceramic Brackets.

Kate James M, Yu Q, Mon H, Xu X, Blanchard A, Armbruster P Turk J Orthod. 2023; 35(4):255-259.

PMID: 36594546 PMC: 9885830. DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2022.21209.

Biomechanical investigation of orthodontic treatment planning based on orthodontic force measurement and finite element method before implementation: A case study.

Wu J, Liu Y, Zhang J, Peng W, Jiang X Technol Health Care. 2018; 26(S1):347-359.

PMID: 29758960 PMC: 6004977. DOI: 10.3233/THC-174689.

References

Arici N, Akdeniz B, Arici S . Comparison of the frictional characteristics of aesthetic orthodontic brackets measured using a modified in vitro technique. Korean J Orthod. 2015; 45(1):29-37. PMC: 4320315. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2015.45.1.29. View

Rajakulendran J, Jones S . Static frictional resistances of polycrystalline ceramic brackets with metal slot inserts. Aust Orthod J. 2007; 22(2):147-52. View

Baccetti T, Franchi L, Camporesi M . Forces in the presence of ceramic versus stainless steel brackets with unconventional vs conventional ligatures. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(1):120-4. DOI: 10.2319/011107-11.1. View

Miethke R . [The effect of physiological tooth mobility on the friction between the bracket and the arch]. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1991; 52(2):102-9. DOI: 10.1007/BF02164714. View

Omana H, Moore R, Bagby M . Frictional properties of metal and ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1992; 26(7):425-32. View

GARNER L, Allai W, Moore B . A comparison of frictional forces during simulated canine retraction of a continuous edgewise arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1986; 90(3):199-203. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(86)90066-1. View

Holtmann S, Konermann A, Keilig L, Reimann S, Jager A, Montasser M . Different bracket-archwire combinations for simulated correction of two-dimensional tooth malalignment: Leveling outcomes and initial force systems. J Orofac Orthop. 2014; 75(6):459-70. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-014-0238-4. View

Tecco S, Tete S, Festa M, Festa F . An in vitro investigation on friction generated by ceramic brackets. World J Orthod. 2011; 11(4):e133-44. View

Drescher D, Bourauel C, Thier M . [Orthodontic measuring and simulating systems (OMSS) for the static and dynamic analysis of tooth movement]. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1991; 52(3):133-40. DOI: 10.1007/BF02173245. View

10.

Saunders C, Kusy R . 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. View

11.

Bourauel C, Drescher D, Thier M . An experimental apparatus for the simulation of three-dimensional movements in orthodontics. J Biomed Eng. 1992; 14(5):371-8. DOI: 10.1016/0141-5425(92)90081-u. View

12.

Downing A, McCabe J, Gordon P . A study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Br J Orthod. 1994; 21(4):349-57. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.21.4.349. View

13.

Jones S, Amoah K . Static frictional resistances of polycrystalline ceramic brackets with conventional slots, glazed slots and metal slot inserts. Aust Orthod J. 2007; 23(1):36-40. View

14.

Tanne K, Matsubara S, Shibaguchi T, Sakuda M . Wire friction from ceramic brackets during simulated canine retraction. Angle Orthod. 1991; 61(4):285-90; discussion 291-2. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0285:WFFCBD>2.0.CO;2. View

15.

Andreasen G, Quevedo F . Evaluation of friction forces in the 0.022 x 0.028 edgewise bracket in vitro. J Biomech. 1970; 3(2):151-60. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9290(70)90002-3. View

16.

Dickson J, Jones S . Frictional characteristics of a modified ceramic bracket. J Clin Orthod. 1996; 30(9):516-8. View

17.

Cha J, Kim K, Hwang C . Friction of conventional and silica-insert ceramic brackets in various bracket-wire combinations. Angle Orthod. 2006; 77(1):100-7. DOI: 10.2319/092705-333R.1. View

18.

Ogata R, NANDA R, Duncanson Jr M, Sinha P, Currier G . Frictional resistances in stainless steel bracket-wire combinations with effects of vertical deflections. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996; 109(5):535-42. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)70139-7. View

19.

Guerrero A, Filho O, Tanaka O, Camargo E, Vieira S . Evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets and archwires of different alloys compared with metal brackets. Braz Oral Res. 2010; 24(1):40-5. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242010000100007. View

20.

Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini M, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F . Evaluation of friction of conventional and metal-insert ceramic brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124(4):403-9. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00501-8. View