DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The comparison of the frictional force by the type and angle of orthodontic bracket and the coated or non-coated feature of archwire

교정용 브라켓의 종류와 각도, 호선의 코팅 여부에 따른 마찰력의 비교

  • Jang, Tae-Ho (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kim, Sang-Cheol (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Cho, Jin-Hyoung (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Chae, Jong-Moon (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Chang, Na-Young (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University) ;
  • Kang, Kyung-Hwa (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Wonkwang University)
  • 장태호 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과교정학교실) ;
  • 김상철 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과교정학교실) ;
  • 조진형 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과교정학교실) ;
  • 채종문 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과교정학교실) ;
  • 장나영 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과교정학교실) ;
  • 강경화 (원광대학교 치과대학 치과교정학교실)
  • Received : 2011.05.20
  • Accepted : 2011.09.30
  • Published : 2011.12.30

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference in frictional resistance among metal, ceramic, self-ligation brackets and coated or non-coated Ni-Ti archwires at various bracket-archwire angulations during the sliding movement of an orthodontic archwire, using an orthodontic sliding simulation device. Methods: Four types of bracket (Micro-arch Perpect Clear2 Clippy-C and Damon3 and 5 types of orthodontic archwire (0.014", 0.016", and 0.016" ${\times}$ 0.022" inch coated Ni-Ti, and 0.016" and 0.016" ${\times}$ 0.022" inch Ni-Ti) were used. Further, the bracket- archwire angles were set at 4 different angulations: $0^{\circ}$, $3^{\circ}$, $6^{\circ}$, and $9^{\circ}$. Results: The frictions from all the experimental groups were found to be significantly increased in order of self-ligation brackets, Micro-arch and Perpect Clear2 ($p$ < 0.001). The presence of a coat had no effect on the friction of the same sized archwires at $0^{\circ}$ and $3^{\circ}$ bracket-archwire angles ($p$ < 0.001). Coated archwires had significantly higher frictions than the same sized non-coated archwires at $6^{\circ}$ and $9^{\circ}$ bracket-archwire angles ($p$ < 0.001). The frictions increased significantly as the bracket-archwire angles were increased ($p$ < 0.001). Conclusions: The use of self-ligation brackets will be beneficial in clinical situations where a low frictional force is required. Further, in cases where crowding is not severe, the use of coated archwires should not cause problems. However, more additional explanation is required considering the fact that the damage of coated archwire and exposure of the metal portion in case of binding and notching and the effects of saliva were not taken into account.

본 연구의 목적은 코팅된 호선, 다양한 브라켓, 그리고 브라켓-호선 각도가 교정용 호선이 브라켓을 활주 이동하는 동안 발생되는 마찰력에 어떠한 영향을 미치는지에 대하여 평가해보는 것이었다. 고정식 장치를 이용한 교정치료 시발생할 수 있는 상황을 시뮬레이션하기 위하여 4종류의 브라켓(금속 브라켓인 Micro-arch, 단결정 세라믹 브라켓인 Perpect Clear2, active type의 자가결찰 브라켓인 Clippy-C, passive type의 자가결찰 브라켓인 Damon3)과 5종류의 교정용 호선(0.014", 0.016", 0.016" ${\times}$ 0.022" inch coated Ni-Ti 호선, 0.016", 0.016" ${\times}$ 0.022" inch Ni-Ti 호선)이 사용되었고 브라켓-호선 각도는 각각 $0^{\circ}$, $3^{\circ}$, $6^{\circ}$, $9^{\circ}$로 조절되었다. 모든 실험군에서 자가결찰 브라켓군, Micro-arch군, Perpect Clear2이 순으로 정지, 운동 마찰력이 유의하게 높았다 ($p$ < 0.001). $0^{\circ}$$3^{\circ}$의 브라켓-호선 각도에서 같은 크기의 Ni-Ti 호선은 코팅 여부에 따른 정지, 운동 마찰력의 유의한 차이가 없었으나, $3^{\circ}$에서 자가결찰 브라켓군의 0.016" ${\times}$ 0.022" inch Ni-Ti 호선에서만 코팅된 경우에 마찰력이 유의하게 높았으며 ($p$ < 0.001), $6^{\circ}$$9^{\circ}$의 브라켓-호선 각도에서 원형과 각형 호선은 모두 같은 크기의 코팅된 호선에서 정지, 운동 마찰력이 유의하게 높았다 ($p$ < 0.001). 코팅된 호선은 크기가 커질수록 정지, 운동 마찰력이 유의하게 높아졌다 ($p$ < 0.001). 각형 호선은 원형 호선 보다 정지, 운동 마찰력이 유의하게 높았으나, $9^{\circ}$의 브라켓-호선 각도에서 0.016" inch coated Ni-Ti 호선만은 0.016" ${\times}$ 0.022" inch Ni-Ti 호선보다 마찰력이 높았다 ($p$ < 0.001). 브라켓-호선 각도가 증가함에 따라 정지, 운동 마찰력도 유의하게 높아졌으나 ($p$ < 0.001), Micro-arch군과 Perpect Clear2군에서 0.016 inch Ni-Ti 호선과 이루는 각도 $0^{\circ}$, $3^{\circ}$에서는 마찰력의 유의한 차이가 없었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Seong BN. Basic physics. Seoul: Ewoo Publication; 1981. p. 60-63.
  2. Cho MS, Kim JC. Frictional forces in the fixed orthodontic appliance during tooth movement. Korean J Orthod 1990;20:409-417.
  3. Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL. Orthodontics: current orthodontic concepts and techniques. 4th ed. St Louis: Elsevier Mosby; 2005. p. 303-4.
  4. Stoner MM. Force control in clinical practice. Am J Orthod 1960;46:163-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(60)90080-4
  5. Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:397-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90324-7
  6. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin Orthod 1997;3:166-177. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1073-8746(97)80067-9
  7. Burrow SJ. Friction and resistance to sliding in orthodontics: a critical review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135: 442-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.023
  8. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00238-5
  9. Nishio C, da Motta AF, Elias CN, Mucha JN. In vitro evaluation of frictional forces between archwires and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:56-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.01.005
  10. Suh CW, Jung HS, Cho JH, Kang KH. Comparison of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Korean J Orthod 2005;35:116-126.
  11. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Influence of archwire and bracket dimensions on sliding mechanics: derivations and determinations of the critical contact angles for binding. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:199-208. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/21.2.199
  12. Kapur Wadhwa R, Kwon HK, Sciote JJ, Close JM. Frictional resistance in ceramic and metal brackets. J Clin Orthod 2004; 38:35-38.
  13. Jeong TJ, Choie MK. Evaluation of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Korean J Orthod 2000;30: 613-623.
  14. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.11.034
  15. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.029
  16. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Ricciardi A, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:395-402. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00504-3
  17. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effect of archwire size and material on the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with second-order angulation in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:295-305. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.126156
  18. Michelberger DJ, Eadie RL, Faulkner MG, Glover KE, Prasad NG, Major PW. The friction and wear patterns of orthodontic brackets and archwires in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:662-674. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.105529
  19. Han JS, Lee JW, Cha KS. A comparative study of frictional forces according to orthodontic wires and ligation method under dry and wet conditions. Korean J Orthod 2001;31:271-281.
  20. Kusy RP. Orthodontic biomaterials: from the past to the present. Angle Orthod 2002;72:501-512.
  21. Elayyan F, Silikas N, Bearn D. Mechanical properties of coated superelastic archwires in conventional and self-ligating orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137: 213-217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.01.026
  22. Choi WC, Kim TW, Park JY, Kwak JH, Na HJ, Park DN. The effect of bracket width on frictional force between bracket and arch wire during sliding tooth movement. Korean J Orthod 2004;34:253-260.
  23. Tanne K, Matsubara S, Shibaguchi T, Sakuda M. Wire friction from ceramic brackets during simulated canine retraction. Angle Orthod 1991;61:285-290.
  24. Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW, Sandrik JL. A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:513-522. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(91)70091-A
  25. Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:472-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70069-9
  26. Lee JH, Lee KS. An experimental study of dynamic frictional resistance between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Korean J Orthod 2001;31:467-477.
  27. Kapila S, Angolkar PV, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS. Evaluation of friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:117-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70005-W
  28. Cha JY, Kim KS, Kim DC, Hwang CJ. Evaluation of friction of ceramic brackets in various bracket-wire combinations. Korean J Orthod 2006;36:125-135.

Cited by

  1. 치과교정치료 초기 환자들의 치료특성이 수면의 질에 미치는 영향 vol.14, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.13065/jksdh.2014.14.03.343