Friction behavior of self-ligating and conventional brackets with different ligature systems

Inclination Changes in Incisors During Orthodontic Treatment with Passive Self-Ligating Brackets

Background: Correct inclination of the incisors is crucial for function and occlusion. The aim of this retrospective cephalometric study was to investigate the effect of orthodontic treatment with passive self-ligating (SL) brackets on the incisor inclination compared to untreated controls. Methods: This study evaluated an orthodontic treatment group (n = 30, Ø13.4 years, ANB Ø2.3°) before (T1) and after (T2) orthodontic therapy with passive SL-brackets (MBT prescription, 0.022″ slot) by one experienced orthodontist. The control group was matched according to age and sex (n = 30, Ø13.3 years, ANB Ø2.5°). The incisor inclination was evaluated digitally using cephalometric lateral radiographs. Results: The cephalometric evaluation showed a significant incisor proclination during orthodontic treatment with SL brackets. The upper incisors proclined by +3.8° (U1-PP) and +3.7° (U1-SN) and the lower incisors proclined by +4.4° (L1-MP). The control group presented a reclination of the upper incisors by -1.4° (U1-PP) and -0.6° (U1-SN) and the lower incisors by -0.4° (L1-MP). The clinically relevant protrusion effect during orthodontic treatment with SL brackets summed up to +5.2° (U1-PP), and +4.3° (U1-SN) for the upper incisors (+2.0°/year, +1.6°/year) as well as +4.8° (L1-MP) for the lower incisors (+1.6°/year) compared to controls. Sex-specific differences were found. Males showed a greater proclination of the upper incisors by +5.3° (U1-PP) and +5.9° (U1-SN) compared to females in the treatment group. Conclusions: Orthodontic treatment with SL brackets results in protrusion of the upper and lower incisors by +5° compared to controls. These findings must be considered in orthodontic treatment planning according to initial diagnostics.

Successful management and stability of maxillary class II dentoalveolar protrusion with extractions of upper second and lower third molars, using en-masse distalization and vertical control with bone miniscrews: Adult case report with 7-year follow-up

This case report describes the successful long-term management of a 19-year-old female patient presenting with a skeletal Class II pattern, mild anterior open bite, and mandibular retrognathia. The orthodontic treatment approach involved the distal movement of the maxillary and mandibular dentitions through the extraction of the maxillary second molars and mandibular third molars, combined with the use of extra-alveolar infrazygomatic crest (IZC) and buccal shelf (BS) miniscrews for anchorage. The treatment outcome achieved a stable, well-aligned dentition with ideal intercuspation and an improved facial profile. The 7-year post-treatment records demonstrated a stable occlusion and satisfactory facial aesthetics, confirming the long-term stability of this treatment approach. This case report supports that en-masse distalization of the entire dentition by extracting the upper second molars and lower third molars, coupled with bone miniscrew anchorages, can be a favourable alternative to the conventional premolar extraction approach for the correction of borderline Class II malocclusions.

Sliding behaviour and surface quality after static air polishing of conventional and modern bracket materials : In vitro analysis

OBJECTIVES

As part of orthodontic treatment, air polishing is routinely used for professional tooth cleaning. Thus, we investigated the effects of static powder polishing on sliding behaviour and surface quality of three different bracket materials (polymer, ceramic, metal), including a 3D-printed bracket.

METHODS

Two bracket types of each material group were polished with an air-polishing device using sodium bicarbonate. Exposure times were set at 10, 20, and 60 s; the application distance was 5 mm. The force loss due to sliding resistance was tested with an orthodontic measurement and simulation system (OMSS) using a 0.016 inch × 0.022 inch stainless steel archwire. Untreated brackets served as control. Polishing effects and slot precision were evaluated using an optical digital and scanning electron microscope.

RESULTS

Sliding behaviour and slot precision differed significantly between and within the groups. Prior to polishing, polymer brackets showed the least force loss, ceramic brackets the highest. With progressive polishing time, the resistance increased significantly with titanium brackets (26 to 37%) and decreased significantly with steel brackets (36 to 25%). Polymer brackets showed the smallest changes in force loss with respect to polishing duration. Slot precision showed the largest differences between material groups and was primarily manufacturer-dependent with hardly any changes due to the polishing time.

CONCLUSION

Powder polishing can positively or negatively affect the sliding properties of the bracket-archwire complex but is more dependent on the bracket-archwire material combination (i.e., manufacture-dependent slot precision). For titanium brackets, resistance only increased after 60 s of polishing. For ceramic brackets, effective reduction was observed after 10 s of polishing. Polymer brackets, including the 3D-printed brackets, showed better sliding properties than ceramic or metal brackets even after polishing for 60 s. Removal of plaque and dental calculus should lead to a noticeable improvement of the sliding properties and outweighs structural defects that may develop.

Comparative in vitro analysis of the sliding resistance of a modern 3D-printed polymer bracket in combination with different archwire types

Objectives

To analyse the sliding resistance of a modern 3D-printed polymer bracket combined with different archwire types and to compare the results with conventionally used polymeric, ceramic and metal brackets. It was of further interest which bracket-archwire combination could be best qualified for clinical use.

Materials and methods

The sliding behaviour was tested using an orthodontic measurement and simulation system (OMSS) for the use of two bracket types of the polymer, ceramic and metal group in combination with a 0.016 inch × 0.022 inch and 0.017 inch × 0.025 inch archwire of nickel-titanium (NiTi), titanium-molybdenum alloy (TMA) and stainless steel. Six bracket types were combined with six different archwire types and compared to each other.

Results

The sliding resistance showed significant differences between various the bracket-archwire complexes. The combination of 3D-printed polymer brackets with both steel archwire cross-sections showed the least values of sliding resistance (average 23–29%), while the combination of ceramic brackets with TMA archwires presented the highest (average 47%).

Conclusions

The present study could show that modern 3D-printed bracket materials can have similar or even better mechanical properties than conventional ones regarding sliding resistance. Although the combination of bracket and archwire material is decisive for low sliding resistance values, the selection of the bracket material seems to have a greater influence than the selection of the archwire material or its cross section.

Clinical relevance

It might be possible in future to combine aesthetic and biomechanical requirements for aesthetic brackets by using 3D-printing technology.

Friction behavior of the wire material Gummetal®

OBJECTIVES

Gummetal® (Maruemu Works, Osaka, Japan), a new orthodontic wire material successfully used in clinical applications since 2006, is biocompatible and exhibits exceptionally high elasticity, nonlinear elastic behavior, plasticity and strength. Systematic comparisons of friction behavior are lacking; thus, the friction of Gummetal® in the binding modus was compared to commonly used low friction wires.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In vivo tests were run with Gummetal®, CoCr (cobalt-chromium Elgiloy®, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, CO, USA), β‑Ti (β-Titanium TMA®, Ormco, Orange, CA, USA), NiTi (nickel-titanium, NiTi-SE, Dentalline, Birkenfeld, Germany), and stainless steel (SS; Ref. 251-925, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) [dimensions: 0.014 inch (0.35 mm), 0.016 inch (0.40 mm), 0.016 × 0.022 inch (0.40 × 0.56 mm), and 0.019 × 0.025 inch (0.48 × 0.64 mm)-β-Ti not available in the dimension 0.014 inch]. These were combined with Discovery® (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), Micro Sprint® (Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany), Clarity™ (3M Unitek), and Inspire Ice™ (Ormco) and slots in the dimension 0.022 inch (0.56 mm) and, except for the 0.019 × 0.025 inch wires, in the dimension 0.018 inch (0.46 mm). They were ligated with a 0.010 inch (0.25 mm) steel ligature (Smile Dental, Ratingen, Germany). Brackets were angulated by applying a moment of force of 10 Nmm against the wire, which was pulled through the slot at 0.2 mm/s.

RESULTS

In 660 tests using 132 bracket-wire combinations, friction loss for Gummetal® was comparable to and, in a few combinations with Micro Sprint®, significantly lower (p < 0.05) than SS and CoCr. The friction for Gummetal® was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than NiTi, and β‑Ti. In some bracket-wire combinations, lower friction was found with round wires compared to rectangular wires, except for the combination with Inspire Ice™, which was higher but not significant. Slot size did not have a significant effect on friction in most combinations.

CONCLUSION

The low friction associated with Gummetal® wires during arch-guided tooth movement will be a valuable addition to the armamentarium of orthodontists.

Friction evaluation of an elastic chain positioned under or over the wire in self-ligating brackets

Objectives:

This study aimed to evaluate the frictional resistance produced by active and passive self-ligating brackets on stainless steel archwires in the absence or presence of elastomeric chains under or over the wire.

Materials and Methods:

Four types of self-ligating brackets were used: Two active and two passive. For each commercial brand, five brackets were bonded to an acrylic plate and the frictional resistance was evaluated with 0.018” and 0.019” × 0.025” stainless steel wires in three situations: Without elastomeric chain, with elastomeric chain placed under and over the wire.

Results:

The bracket type, cross-section of the wire, and type of ligation had significant interactions with each other; the frictional resistance was significantly lower with the use of passive self-ligated brackets, while no difference was found when a 0.018” wire was tested. Moreover, the frictional resistance in the absence of an elastomeric chain, or when the chain was under the wire, was significantly lower in comparison with the values obtained when the chain was placed on the wire.

Conclusion:

Frictional resistance of passive and active self-ligated brackets is influenced by the ligation methods and the cross-sectioning of archwires.

Torque expression by active and passive self-ligating brackets in patients with four premolar extractions: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Appropriate torque expression contributes to ideal treatment outcomes both clinically and aesthetically. Whether active and passive self-ligating brackets (SLBs) have different torque-control capability in vivo has never been reported. The purpose of present study was to explore whether there was difference in torque expression in active and passive SLBs.

SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION

In this retrospective study, 225 patients with four first premolar extractions were enrolled. For each patient, the digital lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken before and after treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study consisted of 2 groups: 111 subjects were treated with passive SLBs (Damon Q, Ormco) and 114 subjects with active SLBs (Empower 2, American Orthodontics). Measurements to determine skeletal changes and incisor inclination were obtained from cephalometric tracings using Dolphin software (version 11.8, USA). Comparisons in both groups and intergroups were compared using t tests and chi-square test.

RESULTS

Significant differences in the variation of U1-SN(°), U1-NA(°), L1-NB(°) and L1-FH(°) were found between two groups. More labially inclined maxillary incisors were found in active SLB group, while more labially inclined mandibular incisors were observed in passive SLB group.

CONCLUSIONS

With the present prescription set in the two brackets, active SLBs achieved more proclined maxillary incisors and retroclined mandibular incisors. Clinicians should take torque expression of brackets into consideration during orthodontic treatment.

"In Vitro" Study About Variables that Influence in Arch Friction with Conventional and Self-Ligating Brackets

Many advantages have been described surrounding self-ligating (SL) brackets compared to metallic conventional ligating (CL) brackets, such as: Less total treatment time, alignment efficiency, patient comfort, plaque retention, and low friction. The objective of this in vitro simulation was to know the variables that affect arch displacement in CL and SL brackets-active (ASL) and passive (PSL)-and analyze if static friction values are affected by bracket design, arch wire section, kind of ligature, and use of a friction reducer agent (FRA) in a wet state. Larger values of static friction were found in CL with metallic ligature (ML) (8.01 ± 1.08 N/mm) and elastic ligature (EL) (6.96 ± 0.48 N/mm). Lower values were found in PSL brackets combined with FRA (0.58 ± 0.21 N/mm). The study was carried out using different stereographical models of a maxillary upper right quadrant with canine, first and second premolar, and first molar bonded brackets. A section of 25 mm of 0.019 × 0.025" stainless steel arch with a rectangular section (SS) and hybrid section (HY) was inserted into the different bracket models. Static friction values were collected using a universal test machine in wet conditions and testing the effect of a friction reducer agent (FRA). To assure the reliability of the study, different wire combinations were repeated after two weeks by the same operator and a linear analysis of regression was done. Each bracket model analysis-with the different wires, use of the FRA, and comparison among brackets in similar conditions-was done using an ANOVA test with a confidence interval of 95% and comparative Post-Hoc tests (LSD). In this in vitro simulation we found higher static friction values in CL compared to ASL and PSL. In PSL, lower values were achieved. CL brackets using ML showed the highest static friction values with a great variability. In this setting, the use of HY wires did not reduce static friction values in ASL and PSL, while in CL brackets with EL friction the values were reduced significantly. An FRA combined with ASL reduced significantly static friction values but not with PSL. In the case of CL, the FRA effect was higher with SS and better than with HY wires. ML values were similar to ASL static friction. The direct extrapolation of the results might be inaccurate, since all these findings should be tested clinically to be validated.