Comparison of Frictional Resistance Produced by Self-ligating Brackets and Conventional Brackets Ligated with Various Types of Ligature

Main Article Content

Jirawan Chartpitak
Natawit Promma
Dhirawat Jotikasthira
Janya Apisariyakul
Wikanda Khemaleelakul

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare frictional resistance among self-ligating brackets and the conventional brackets ligated with five types of ligature. 0.021×0.025-inch straight stainless steel (SS) wire were ligated on maxillary premolar brackets with 0.022-inch slots using six types of ligation method, 10 samples for each group. Five types of ligature: 1) 0.010-inch SS ligatures, 2) conventional elastomeric ligatures, 3) polymeric-coated elastomeric ligatures, 4) low-friction elastomeric ligatures, and 5) low-friction clip ligatures were ligated on standard SS brackets in Groups 1 to 5, respectively. SS passive self-ligating brackets were used in Group 6. The frictional resistance of each sample was measured using a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed using the One-way ANOVA test followed by Dunnett's post-hoc test (p<0.05).


Polymeric-coated elastomeric ligatures produced the greatest frictional resistance. Low-friction clip ligatures produced the least frictional resistance and was not significantly different from that produced by SS ligatures, low-friction elastomeric ligatures, or self-ligating brackets, but was significantly less than that of conventional elastomeric ligatures or polymeric-coated elastomeric ligatures.


In conclusion, the tube-like designs (the low-friction elastomeric ligature, the low-friction clip ligature, and the self-ligating bracket) produced less frictional resistance than did the conventional and polymeric-coated elastomeric ligature.

Article Details

How to Cite
Chartpitak, J. ., Promma, N. ., Jotikasthira, D. ., Apisariyakul, J. ., & Khemaleelakul, W. . (2019). Comparison of Frictional Resistance Produced by Self-ligating Brackets and Conventional Brackets Ligated with Various Types of Ligature. Chiang Mai Dental Journal, 40(2), 39–50. Retrieved from https://he01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/cmdj/article/view/210318
Section
Original article

References

Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin Orthod 1997; 3: 166-177.

Rossouw PE. Friction: an overview. Semin Orthod 2003; 9: 218-222.

Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96: 397-404.

Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123: 416-422.

Redlich M, Mayer Y, Harari D, Lewinstein I. In vitro study of frictional forces during sliding mechanics of “reduced-friction” brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 69-73.

Braun S, Bluestein M, Moore BK, Benson G. Friction in perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 115: 619-627.

Nanda RS, Tosun Y. Biomechanics in Orthodontics: Principles and Practice. 1st ed. Quintessence 2010: 17-81.

Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM. Contemporary Orthodontics 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2013: 344-383.

Arun AV, Vaz AC. Frictional characteristics of the newer orthodontic elastomeric ligatures. Indian J Dent Res 2011; 22: 95-99.

Fortini A, Lupoli M, Cacciafesta V. A new low-friction ligation system. J Clin Orthod 2005; 39: 464-470.

Deguchi T, Imai M, Sugawara Y, Ando R, Kushima K, Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical evaluation of a low-friction attachment device during canine retraction. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 968-972.

Stefanos S, Secchi AG, Coby G, Tanna N, Mante FK. Friction between various self-ligating brackets and archwire couples during sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 463-467.

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; 136: 675-682.

Kahlon S, Rinchuse D, Robison JM, Close JM. In-vitro evaluation of frictional resistance with 5 ligation methods and Gianelly-type working wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 138: 67-71.

Kumar S, Singh S, Hamsa PRR, et al. Evaluation of friction in orthodontics using various brackets and archwire combinations-an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8: Zc33-Zc36.

Leite VV, Lopes MB, Gonini Junior A, Almeida MR, Moura SK, Almeida RR. Comparison of frictional resistance between self-ligating and conventional brackets tied with elastomeric and metal ligature in orthodontic archwires. Dental Press J Orthod 2014; 19: 114-119.

Khambay B, Millett D, McHugh S. Evaluation of methods of archwire ligation on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2004; 26: 327-332.

Songra G, Clover M, Atack NE, et al. Comparative assessment of alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: a single-center randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014; 145: 569-578.

Huang TH, Luk HS, Hsu YC, Kao CT. An in vitro comparison of the frictional forces between archwires and self-ligating brackets of passive and active types. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34: 625-632.

Reicheneder CA, Gedrange T, Berrisch S, et al. Conventionally ligated versus self-ligating metal brackets—a comparative study. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 654-660.

Tecco S, Di Iorio D, Cordasco G, Verrocchi I, Festa F. An in vitro investigation of the influence of self-ligating brackets, low friction ligatures, and archwire on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod 2007; 29: 390-397.

Gupta A, Sable RB. The Effect of Various Ligation Methods on Friction in Sliding Mechanics. J Ind Orthod Soc 2013; 47: 83-87.

Baccetti T, Franchi L. Friction produced by types of elastomeric ligatures in treatment mechanics with the preadjusted appliance. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 211-216.

Fusayama T, Katayori T, Nomoto S. Corrosion of Gold And Amalgam Placed in Contact with Each Other. J Dent Res 1963; 42: 1183-1197.

Jones SP, Ben Bihi S. Static frictional resistance with the slide low-friction elastomeric ligature system. Aust Orthod J 2009; 25: 136-141.

Smith DV, Rossouw PE, Watson P. Quantified simulation of canine retraction: evaluation of frictional resistance. Semin Orthod 2003; 9: 262-280.

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: 302-308.

Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. A comparison of different ligation methods on friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 130: 666-670.

Griffiths HS, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Resistance to sliding with 3 types of elastomeric modules. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005; 127: 670-675.

Chimenti C, Franchi L, Di Giuseppe MG, Lucci M. Friction of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures with different dimensions. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 421-425.

McLaughlin RP BJ, Trevisi H. Systemized orthodontic treatment mechanics. 1st ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2001: 94.

Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Effects of sliding velocity on the coefficients of friction in a model orthodontic system. Dental Materials 1989; 5: 235-240.

Yanase Y, Ioi H, Nishioka M, Takahashi I. Effects of sliding velocity on friction: an in vitro study at extremely low sliding velocity approximating orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 451-458.

Savoldi F, Visconti L, Dalessandri D. In vitro evaluation of the influence of velocity on sliding resistance of stainless steel arch wires in a self-ligating orthodontic bracket. Orthod Craniofac Res 2017; 20: 119-125.

Chen SS, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, Smith CL, Huang GJ. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 726.e721-726.e718.

Fleming PS, Johal A. Self-ligating brackets in orthodontics. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2010; 80: 575-584.

Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El-Bialy TH, Flores-Mir C. Frictional resistance in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2009; 79: 592-601.

Rinchuse DJ, Miles PG. Self-ligating brackets: Present and future. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007; 132: 216-222.

Hamilton R, Goonewardene MS , Murray K. Comparison of active self-ligating brackets and conventional pre-adjusted brackets. Aust Orthod J 2008; 24: 102-109.

Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 480-485.

Mezeg U, Primožič J. Influence of long-term in vivo exposure, debris accumulation and archwire material on friction force among different types of brackets and archwires couples. Eur J Orthod 2017; 39: 673-679.

Hamdan A, Rock P. The effect of different combinations of tip and torque on archwire/bracket friction. Eur J Orthod 2008; 30: 508-514.