1. IRAN
GOOD AFTERNOON
FRICTION

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. 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.  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. About the present article
 Year : 2013
 Volume : 47
 Page number : 211-216
 Submitted in : 19.04.2011
 Accepted in : 09.05.2012
FRICTION

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. 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. 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.  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. 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. Material and methods
FRICTION

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. Material and methods
FRICTION

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. 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. 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.  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. Results
FRICTION

19. Results
FRICTION

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. 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. 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.

23. DISCUSSION
FRICTION

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Review of literature
FRICTION

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.  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. 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.  Baker et al (AJO-DO 1987) using an artificial
saliva substitute found a 15% to 19% reduction in
friction.
FRICTION

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. 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. Critical reflection
FRICTION

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. 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. 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.  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. Thank you.
-By: Sneh Kalgotra
(P.G. Student)
FRICTION