Aim: To evaluate frictional resistance among three different self-ligating brackets (SLBs) and a conventional bracket with three different archwires.
Materials and methods: A total of 120 samples of three different types of mandibular second premolar SLBs—Damon Q, Empower 2, SmartClip brackets, and a Stainless Steel conventional bracket with three types of archwire segments 0.016 inch nickel-titanium (NiTi), 0.019 × 0.025 inch NiTi, 0.019 × 0.025 inch stainless steel were measured. They were divided into four groups, group I = Empower 2 brackets (10), group II = Damon Q brackets (10), group III = SmartClip brackets (10), and group IV = conventional brackets (10) in 0.022 inch slot size with MBT prescription were compared. The three archwires were pulled in each group to determine the frictional resistance using the universal testing machine (UTM) with a 100 gm load cell.
Result: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to analyze the group means, and post hoc Duncan's multiple range test (MRT) was used to compare the mean frictional resistance between the pairs of different bracket groups. The Conventional bracket showed the highest mean values for all three wires, followed by SmartClip, Damon Q, and Empower 2 brackets, in that order. Among the archwires, 0.016 inch NiTi showed the least frictional resistance, while 0.019 × 0.025 inch SS showed the highest values with all three brackets.
Conclusion: Among the four brackets, Empower 2 brackets showed the least frictional resistance. The combination of Empower 2 bracket and 0.016 inch NiTi wire showed the least frictional resistance among the different bracket–wire combinations. Hence it can be the preferred bracket for producing smooth, frictionless orthodontic tooth movement.
Clinical significance: Friction at the bracket–archwire interface plays a key role in determining the orthodontic tooth movement and thereby influencing the treatment duration. Frictional resistance varies between interactive and passive self-ligating systems. Comparing different SLBs with conventional brackets, as done in this study, allows the best bracket system to be selected based on the tooth movement required.
Pillai AR, Gangadharan A, Kumar S, et al. Comparison of the frictional resistance between arch wire and different bracket system: an in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2014;6(1):S150–S155. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.137429
do Amaral MRD, Neto PS, Pithon MM, et al. Evaluation in vitro of frictional resistance of self-ligating esthetic and conventional brackets. Int J Odontostomat 2014;8(2):261–266. DOI: 10.4067/S0718-381X2014000200019
Harradine N. The history and development of self-ligating brackets. Semin Orthod 2008;14(1):5–18. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2007.12.002
Prettyman C, Best Al M, Lindauer SJ, et al. Self-ligating vs conventional brackets as perceived by orthodontists. Angle Orthod 2012;82(6):1060–1066. DOI: 10.2319/101311-640.1
Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative frictional resistance between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod 1980;78(6):593–609. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90199-2
Nishio C, da Motta AFJ, Elias N C, et al. In vitro evaluation of frictional forces between arch wires and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(1):56–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.01.005
Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96(5):397–404. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90324-7
Edwards GD, Davies EH, Jones SP. The in vivo effect of ligation technique on the static frictional resistance of stainless steel brackets and arch wires. Br J Orthod 1995;22(2):145–153. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.22.2.145
Trevisi H, Begstrand F. The SmartClip self-ligating appliance system. Semin Orthod 2008;14(1):87–100. DOI: 10.1053/j.sodo.2007.12.009
Ormco.com. Damon Q2 | Self-ligating Brackets | Ormco Supplies [online]; 2022. [accessed 2022 May 22]. Available from: https://ormco.com/products/damon-q2/
American Orthodontics. Empower® 2 Metal Brackets [online]; 2022. [accessed 2022 May 22]. Available from: https://www.americanortho.com/products/self-ligating-brackets/empower-2-metal-brackets/
Krishnan M, Kalathil S, Abraham KM. Comparative evaluation of frictional forces in active and passive self-ligating brackets with various arch wire alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(5):675–682. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.034
Reznikov N, Har-Zion G, Barkana I, et al. Measurement of friction forces between stainless steel wires and “reduced-friction” self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138(3):330–338. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.025
Tecco S, Marzo G, Bisceglie BD, et al. Does the design of self-ligating brackets show different behavior in terms of friction? Orthodontics (Chic.) 2011;12(4):330–339. PMID: 22299106.
Ehsani S, Mandich MA, El-Bialy TH, et al. Frictional resistance in self-ligating orthodontic brackets and conventionally ligated brackets. A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2009;79(3):592–601. DOI: 10.2319/060208-288.1
Gomez-Gomez SL, Vilarraga-Ossa JA, Diosa-Pena JG, et al. Comparison of frictional resistance between passive self-ligating brackets and slide-type low-friction ligature brackets during the alignment and leveling stage. J Clin Exp Dent 2019;11(7):e593–e600. DOI: 10.4317/jced.55913
Sridharan K, Sandbhor S, Rajasekaran UB, et al. An in vitro evaluation of friction characteristics of conventional stainless steel and self-ligating stainless steel brackets with different dimensions of archwies in various bracket-archwire combination. J Contemp Dent Prac 2017;18(8):660–664. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2102
Chen H, Han B, Xu T. Effect of different combinations of bracket, archwire and ligature on resistance to sliding and axial rotational control during the first stage of orthodontic treatment: an in-vitro study. Korean J Orthod 2019;49(1):21–31. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2019.49.1.21
Wahab RMA, Idris H, Yacob H, et al. Comparison of self-and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur J Orthod 2012;34(2):176–181. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq179
Maizeray R, Wagner D, Lefebvre F, et al. Is there any difference between conventional active and passive self-ligating brackets? A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Int Orthod 2021;19(4):523–538. DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2021.09.005
Miles PG. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(2):223–225. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.04.028
Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006;76(3)480–485. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0480:ACTODV]2.0.CO;2
Chen SSH, Greenlee GM, Kim JE, et al. Systematic review of self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(6):726.e1–726.e18. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.11.009
Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod 2004;74(2):202–211. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0202:EOTFRO>2.0.CO;2
Henao SP, Kusy RP. Frictional evaluations of dental typhodont models using four self-ligating designs and a conventional design. Angle Orthod 2005;75(1)75–85. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)075<0075:FEODTM>2.0.CO;2
Nadim MA, Morcos SS. Frictional resistance of different types of self-ligating brackets with different wire combinations. Egypt Dent J 2018;64(3)1949–1954. DOI: 10.21608/EDJ.2018.76688
