Jc friction


Published on

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Jc friction

  2. 2. Under the guidance of : Dr. Mohammad Mushtaq, HOD & GUIDE By: Sneh Kalgotra, 2nd Year P.G. Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics, GDC&H, Srinagar. FRICTION
  3. 3. Comparative Evaluation of Frictional Forces of Conventional and Self-ligating Bracket Systems: An in vitro Study Gurmeet Kaur, Saurabh Goyal, Sumeet Rajpal, Anil Gera FRICTION
  4. 4.  Journal name: Journal of Indian orthodontic society. Journal feature : International, peer-reviewed, indexed, specialty journal Journal frequency: one issue per month Subject Category :Orthodontics International Standard : Print ISSN:0301-5742 Online ISSN:0974-9098  Editor Dr. Gurkeerat Singh FRICTION
  5. 5. About the present article  Year : 2013  Volume : 47  Page number : 211-216  Submitted in : 19.04.2011  Accepted in : 09.05.2012 FRICTION
  6. 6. About the authors GURMEET KAUR: Professor, Department Of Orthoodntics And Dentofacial Orthopaedics , Saraswati Dental College And Hospital, Uttar Pradesh, India. SAURABH GOYAL: Reader , Department Of Orthoodntics An D Centofacial Orthopaedics , Bjs Dental College Nad Hospital, Ludhiana, Punjab. ANIL GERA: Prefessor And Head, Department Of Orthoodntics An D Centofacial Orthopaedics , Teerthanker Mahaveer Dental College And Research Centre, Moradabad, Uttar Pradesh, India. FRICTION
  7. 7. prologue The success of orthodontic tooth movement with preadjusted appliances depends to a large extent on the ability of the orthodontic archwire to slide through brackets and tubes. The major disadvantage with the use of sliding mechanics is the friction that is generated between the bracket and the archwire during orthodontic tooth movement. FRICTION
  8. 8. A tooth which is sliding along an archwire slides, tips, binds, uprights, and slides again, moving along the arch wire in a ‘ratcheting’ type of movement (“stick-slip phenomenon”). Friction is defined as ‘the force tangential to the common boundary of two bodies in contact that resists the motion of one relative to the other. FRICTION
  9. 9.  To overcome the disadvantages of conventional ligation techniques, self-ligating brackets were introduced.  Ceramic brackets were developed in the 1980s to improve esthetics during orthodontic treatment.  Recently, new low-friction ligatures (Slide™, Leone, Firenze, Italy) have been introduced; FRICTION
  10. 10. Proposed alternative title  Comparative Evaluation of Frictional Forces of Conventional and Self-ligating Bracket Systems using stainless steel, ceramic and self ligating brackets using elastic module and slide : An in vitro Study 20 words. FRICTION
  11. 11. Material and methods FRICTION
  12. 12. Material and methods Three types of brackets and two types of archwires (016 & 19**25) were used in combination with three different ligation methods to evaluate the amount of resistance to sliding present. FRICTION
  13. 13. Material and methods FRICTION
  14. 14. Material and methods On one of the larger surfaces of the metal bar, ten brackets (to represent the upper right second premolar to the upper left second premolar) were bonded using cyanoacrylate adhesive. Instron universal testing machine. The testing model with brackets and the wire engaged in the universal testing machine.
  15. 15. Material and methods FRICTION  Frictional force was measured using Instron universal testing machine (Model 4501, Instron USA, Norwood, MA, USA) (Figs 1A and B)  The archwires were moved through all ten brackets at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm per minute.
  16. 16. Material and methods However, as minor misalignments of the brackets or nonlinearity of the wire could not be controlled, in order to estimate the extent to which the friction could be attributed to misalignment rather than ligation, a confirmatory check was performed. Each bracket-archwire combination was tested 5 times with only the terminal brackets ligated and 5 times with all brackets ligated. Load values were calculated in Newtons (N) and converted to grams (gm). FRICTION
  17. 17.  The data was further analyzed to compare the resistance to sliding for two size archwires in relation to (a) method of ligation (b) bracket material (c) archwire size and material.  The mean values were compared by one-way ANOVA. Multiple range tests by Tukey-Kramer honest significant difference (HSD) procedures were employed to identify the significant groups, if p-value in one-way ANOVA is significant by using statistical software [Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 12.0)] for Windows. In the present study, p-value of <0.05 was considered as the level of significance. FRICTION
  18. 18. Results FRICTION
  19. 19. Results FRICTION
  20. 20. Results Method of Ligation : FRICTION  With 0.016" NiTi wire-stainless steel bracket combination, it was found that conventional ligation exerted considerable amount of friction than Slide and self-ligation  With 0.019" × 0.025" stainless steel wire, conventional ligation exerted higher force than other two types of ligation. However, an interesting finding was that with 0.019" × 0.025" wire, slide ligature exerted less friction than Damon SL II self- ligating bracket Mean SD (p-value) 0.016" NiTi Stainless steel Conventional 1043.40b 85.42 <0.001** Slide 12.88a 3.12 Damon 10.94a 1.037 0.019" × 0.025" Stainless steel Conventional 1390.80b 142.77 <0.001** stainless steel Slide 32.98a 5.767 Damon 50.24a 2.145
  21. 21. Results BRACKET MATERIAL FRICTION  It was found that ceramic brackets when ligated with conventional elastomeric ligatures had higher friction compared to stainless steel brackets.
  22. 22. Results Slide vs Damon SL II FRICTION  For 0.016" NiTi, Damon exhibited lower friction than Slide.  With 0.019“ × 0.025" stainless steel wire, the pattern was reversed.
  24. 24. DISCUSSION  Up to 60% of the applied force is dissipated as friction, which reduces the force available for tooth movement*.  High levels of bracket-archwire friction may result in binding of the bracket accompanied by little or no tooth movement.  *Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces between brackets and arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:397-404. FRICTION
  25. 25. DISCUSSION  Frictional resistance increases as the number of brackets included in the assembly increases*.  When combined with 0.019" × 0.025" stainless-steel wire also conventional ligation exhibited higher friction. But with 0.019" × 0.025" stainless steel wire, Slide ligatures showed less friction than the Damon system. This probably shows that Damon SL II system has lower friction only when used with wires of lower diameter. *Taylor Nigel G, Keith Ison. Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwires in the buccal segments. The Angle Orthodontist June 1996;66(3):215-222. FRICTION
  26. 26. DISCUSSION  Ceramic brackets generated more friction than the stainless steel brackets with both stainless steel and NiTi wires.  Slide ligatures were able to reduce the friction of ceramic brackets. The presence of low-friction ligatures enables ceramic brackets to release a significant amount of orthodontic force during sliding, very similar to stainless steel brackets.  FRICTION
  27. 27. DISCUSSION  When Slide was compared with Damon system, for small round NiTi wires, Damon showed lower frictional value (although it was not statistically significant).  However, with larger stainless steel wires, Damon showed higher friction than Slide low-friction ligatures. FRICTION
  28. 28. Conclusion Frictional demands during orthodontic treatment vary with the stage of the treatment. The solution to reduce friction is the use of self- ligating brackets which exert very minimal normal force. FRICTION
  29. 29. Conclusion  Slide ligature is a valuable and economically viable alternative to Damon self-ligating bracket in that it provides comparable amount of friction as Damon when low-friction is required.  The frictional needs of specific cases should be evaluated early in treatment and conventional or low- friction ligatures can be applied depending on the plan.  The use of low-friction ligatures allows the orthodontist to realize the clinical advantages of low- friction biomechanics to those in the use of esthetic ceramic brackets. FRICTION
  30. 30. Conclusion  Conventional ligation exhibited higher friction than low-friction and self-ligation methods with all the archwire-bracket combinations.  Damon self-ligating system exhibited less friction than low-friction ligation with lower archwires and higher friction with higher archwires.  Slide low-friction ligatures were able to reduce the friction of ceramic brackets in a similar way to stainless steel brackets. FRICTION
  31. 31. CRITICAL APPRAISAL OF THE CONCLUSION Important aspects of study are mentioned.  Authors have not explained the parameters well. Authors have citied relevant articles and studies. BUT,Authors have NOT given a good comparison of results with other studies.  Strengths of the study are NOT mentioned.  Authors have NOT mentioned about the direction of future research in this area. FRICTION
  32. 32. Review of literature FRICTION
  33. 33. Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self- ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. British Journal of Orthodontics 1997;24:309-317. The study demonstrated that both increases in wire size and bracket/archwire angulation resulted in increased static frictional resistance for all bracket types tested, with the presence of saliva having an inconsistent effect. SPEED brackets demonstrated low forces with round wires, although with rectangular wires or in the presence of angulation, friction was greatly increased. FRICTION In conclusion, self-ligating brackets showed reduced frictional resistance in comparison to steel ligated brackets only under certain conditions
  34. 34. Nishio et al (AJO-DO Jan 2004) performed an in vitro study to evaluate frictional forces between various archwires & ceramic brackets.  They found that  titanium showed the highest frictional force, followed by NiTi & SS wires. They suggest that elastic properties of the wire are secondary & surface texture has more influence on frictional force. FRICTION
  35. 35. Zufall & Kusy (Angle Orthod. 2000): Zufall & KuStudied the sliding mechanics of composite orthodontic archwires with a coating of polychloro-p-xylene. The coating eliminated the risk of glass release from the wire. Also frictional & binding coefficients were within the limits outlined by the conventional orthodontic wire-bracket couples. FRICTION
  36. 36. Drescher et al (AJO-DO 1989) stated that friction depends primarily on the vertical dimension of the wire. An 016” stainless steel round wire and an 016 x 022” stainless steel rectangular wire showed virtually the same amount of friction. This was however lower than that for 018X025” wires. FRICTION
  37. 37. Edwards et al (BJO 1995) compared the frictional forces produced when elastomeric modules were applied conventionally or in a “figure of –8” configuration, stainless steel ties or Teflon coated ligatures were used for archwire ligation  . The “figure of 8” modules appeared to create the highest friction. There was no significant difference in mean frictional force between the conventional module and the SS ligature, but the Teflon coated ligature had the lowest mean frictional force FRICTION
  38. 38. Dowling et al (BJO 1998)  investigated the frictional forces of differently colored modules & found the clear modules to exhibit significantly lower friction than other modules. This study however was carried out in absence of saliva FRICTION
  39. 39.  The use of metal ligatures with 7 turns produced the lowest friction confirming the findings of Bazakidon et al (AJO-DO 97). They concluded that the use of passive self ligating brackets is the only may of almost eliminating friction. FRICTION
  40. 40. Henao & Kusy (Angle orthod. 2004)  compared the frictional resistance of conventional & self ligating brackets using various archwire sized. They reported that self ligating brackets exhibited superior performance when coupled with smaller wires used in early stages of orthodontic treatment. However when larger 016 x 022” and 019 x 025” AW were tested, the differences between self-ligating & conventional brackets were not so evident. FRICTION
  41. 41.  Baker et al (AJO-DO 1987) using an artificial saliva substitute found a 15% to 19% reduction in friction. FRICTION
  42. 42. Pratten DH, et al. Frictional resistance of ceramic and stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:398-403 The study revealed that the least frictional resistance was demonstrated by the brackets in the following order i.e. PASSIVE SELF- LIGATING BRACKETS, ACTIVE SELF- LIGATING BRACKETS, TITANIUM, FIBREGLASS and CERAMIC brackets in both dry and wet conditions. Paired t-test, two sample t-test, and Analysis of variance were done to evaluate the results statistically FRICTION
  43. 43. Kusy et al (Angle Orthod 1991) Saliva could have lubricous as well as adhesive behavior depending on which archwire-bracket combination was under consideration. Stainless steel wires showed an adhesive behavior with saliva & a resultant increase in the coefficient of friction in the wet state. The kinetic coefficients of friction of the β-Ti archwire in the wet state were 50% of the values of the dry state. FRICTION
  44. 44. Critical reflection FRICTION
  45. 45. Critical reflection  An appreciation of magnitude of friction is crucial for the orthodontist who employs sliding mechanics during treatment - With best of wire bracket combinations atleast 40g of friction must be included in force applied to initiate tooth movement.  This article is very relevant to day to day practice of orthodontics FRICTION
  46. 46. Critical reflection Complete leveling of arch - important factor in reducing friction during tooth movement. Since advent of fire by stone aged man, the virtues of friction have been bestowed upon mankind, sometimes as a hindrance and at other times as a boon. FRICTION
  47. 47. References  Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of self- ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. British Journal of Orthodontics 1997;24:309-317.  Vaughan, Duncanson, Nanda, Currier. Relative kinetic frictional forces between sintered stainless steel wires and orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Jan 1995;20-27.  Schumacher HA, Bourauel C, Drescher D. The effect of the ligature on the friction between bracket and arch. Fortschr Kieferorthop 1990;51:106-116.  Sims APT, et al. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. European J Ortho 1993;15:377- 385.  Omana HM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Frictional properties of metal and ceramic brackets. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 1992;26(7):425-432.  Pratten DH, et al. Frictional resistance of ceramic and stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:398- 403.  Fortini A, Lupoli M, Cacciafesta V. A new low-friction ligation system. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 2005;39:464-470. FRICTION
  48. 48.  Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Traini T, Di Iorio D, D’Attilio M. Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10 bracket model. Angle Orthodontist Nov 2005;75(6):1041-1045.  Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces between brackets and arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:397-404.  Kapila S, et al. Evaluation of friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:117-126.  Proffit William R. Contemporary orthodontics (4th ed), St Louis: Missouri, Mosby Company 2007.  Taylor Nigel G, Keith Ison. Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and archwires in the buccal segments. The Angle Orthodontist June 1996;66(3):215-222.  Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self- ligating brackets. European Journal of Orthodontics 1998;20: 283-291.  Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre- adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. European Journal of Orthodontics, 1998;20:589-596.  Loftus BP, et al. Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(3):336-345. FRICTION
  49. 49. Thank you. -By: Sneh Kalgotra (P.G. Student) FRICTION