Comparison of static friction with self-ligating, modified
               slot design and conventional brackets

Castro, Raquel Morais; Smith Neto, Perrin; Horta, Martinho Campolina Rebello; Pithon, Matheus Melo; Oliveira, Dauro Douglas

doi:10.1590/1678-775720130097

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Journal of Applied Oral Science

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLES • J. Appl. Oral. Sci. 21 (4) • Jul-Aug 2013 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720130097 copy

Comparison of static friction with self-ligating, modified slot design and conventional brackets

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

OBJECTIVE:

To compare the static frictional forces generated at the bracket/wire interface of stainless steel brackets with different geometries and angulations, combined with orthodontic wires of different diameters.

MATERIAL AND METHODS:

The frictional forces were evaluated with three different types of metal brackets: a passive self-ligating (SmartClip^TM, 3M/Unitek, Monrovia, USA), with a modified slot design (Mini Uni Twin^TM, 3M/Unitek, Monrovia, USA) and conventional (Kirium, Abzil, São José do Rio Preto, Brazil). The samples were mounted in a testing device with three different angulations and tested with 0.014" and 0.018" stainless steel wires (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, USA). The static frictional force was measured using a universal testing machine (DL 500, EMIC^®, São José dos Pinhais, Brazil) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test.

RESULTS:

There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in static friction when the three types of brackets were tested with the same wire size. The wire diameter influenced friction only when the brackets had a 10º angulation (p<0.05). The angulation influenced friction (p<0.05) when the brackets were associated with a 0.018" wire.

CONCLUSION:

Brackets with a modified slot design showed intermediate static frictional force values between the conventional and self-ligating brackets tested.

Friction.; Orthodontics.; Orthodontic brackets.

		0º	5º	10º	*p^ * p values were obtained by two way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test. value**
Conventional bracket	0.014"	2.93±1.02	2.72±0.86	3.21±0.57	n.s^a a 0º versus 5º; ^, ^b b 0º versus 10º; ^, ^c c 5º versus 10º;
	0.018"	2.79±0.86	3.14±0.94	4.86±0.93	n.s^a a 0º versus 5º; / p<0.05^b b 0º versus 10º; ^, ^c c 5º versus 10º;
	p^* * p values were obtained by two way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test. value	n.s^d d 0.014" versus 0.018";	n.s^d d 0.014" versus 0.018";	p<0.05^d d 0.014" versus 0.018";
Bracket with a modified slot design	0.014"	1.69±0.13	1.67±0.20	1.74±0.20	n.s^a a 0º versus 5º; ^, ^b b 0º versus 10º; ^, ^c c 5º versus 10º;
	0.018"	1.91±0.26	1.83±0.24	3.24±0.60	n.s^a a 0º versus 5º; / p<0.05^b b 0º versus 10º; ^, ^c c 5º versus 10º;
	p^* * p values were obtained by two way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test. value	n.s^d d 0.014" versus 0.018";	n.s^d d 0.014" versus 0.018";	p<0.05^d d 0.014" versus 0.018";
Self-ligating bracket	0.014"	0.17±0	0.17±0	.37±0.07	n.s^a a 0º versus 5º; ^, ^b b 0º versus 10º; ^, ^c c 5º versus 10º;
	0.018"	0.17±0 n.s^d d 0.014" versus 0.018";	0.37±0.21	0 1.32±0.50	n.s^a a 0º versus 5º; / p<0.05^b b 0º versus 10º; ^, ^c c 5º versus 10º;
	p^* * p values were obtained by two way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test. value		n.s^d d 0.014" versus 0.018";	p<0.05^d d 0.014" versus 0.018";

		Conventional bracket	Bracket with a modified slot design	Self-ligating bracket	p^* * p values were obtained by two way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni's post hoc test value
0º	0.014"	2.93±1.02	1.69±0.13	0.17±0	p<0.05^a a Conventional bracket versus bracket with changed groove geometry; ^, ^b b Conventional bracket versus self-ligating bracket; ^, ^c c bracket with changed groove geometry versus self-ligating bracket
	0.018"	2.79±0.86	1.91±0.26	0.17±0	p<0.05^a a Conventional bracket versus bracket with changed groove geometry; ^, ^b b Conventional bracket versus self-ligating bracket; ^, ^c c bracket with changed groove geometry versus self-ligating bracket
5º	0.014"	2.72±0.86	1.67±0.20	0.17±0	p<0.05^a a Conventional bracket versus bracket with changed groove geometry; ^, ^b b Conventional bracket versus self-ligating bracket; ^, ^c c bracket with changed groove geometry versus self-ligating bracket
	0.018"	3.14±0.94	1.83±0.24	0.37±0.21	p<0.05^a a Conventional bracket versus bracket with changed groove geometry; ^, ^b b Conventional bracket versus self-ligating bracket; ^, ^c c bracket with changed groove geometry versus self-ligating bracket
10º	0.014"	3.21±0.57	1.74±0.20	0.37±0.07	p<0.05^a a Conventional bracket versus bracket with changed groove geometry; ^, ^b b Conventional bracket versus self-ligating bracket; ^, ^c c bracket with changed groove geometry versus self-ligating bracket
	0.018"	4.86±0.93	3.24±0.60	1.32±0.50	p<0.05^a a Conventional bracket versus bracket with changed groove geometry; ^, ^b b Conventional bracket versus self-ligating bracket; ^, ^c c bracket with changed groove geometry versus self-ligating bracket

Faculdade De Odontologia De Bauru - USP Serviço de Biblioteca e Documentação FOB-USP, Alameda Dr. Octávio Pinheiro Brisolla 9-75, 17012-901 Bauru SP Brasil, Tel.: +55 14 3235-8373 - Bauru - SP - Brazil
E-mail: jaos@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding address: Dauro Douglas Oliveira - Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais - Mestrado em Odontologia - Av. Dom José Gaspar, 500 - Prédio 46 - Sala 106 - Belo Horizonte - MG - Brazil - 30535-610 - Phone: 55 - 31 - 3319-4414 - Fax: 55 - 31 - 3319-4415 - e-mail: dauro@pucminas.br