Download PDF
CC BY 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2024; 18(01): 265-272
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1768471
Original Article

Development and Evaluation of a New Orthodontic Ligature: Frictional Force Analysis

Jaisson Cenci 
1   Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil
,
Mauro Carlos Agner Busato 
2   Western State University of Paraná, Dental School, Cascavel, PR, Brazil
,
Veridiana Camilotti 
2   Western State University of Paraná, Dental School, Cascavel, PR, Brazil
,
Márcio José Mendonça 
2   Western State University of Paraná, Dental School, Cascavel, PR, Brazil
› Author Affiliations Funding This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brasil (CAPES; Finance Code: 001).
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective To evaluate and compare the friction of different ligature modes used in orthodontics, and to propose a new ligature model for conventional brackets (“H low-friction orthodontic ligature).

Materials and Methods Samples were randomly divided into seven experimental groups: (1) resin H ligature (H3D), designed by the authors of this study and produced in a 3D printer, with conventional bracket; (2) metal H ligature (HFM), with conventional bracket; (3) passive self-ligating bracket (SLP); (4) “8” low-friction unconventional elastic (LT8), with conventional bracket; (5) loose conventional metal ligature (MLS), with conventional bracket; (6) conventional metal ligature fully tightened (MLT), with conventional bracket; (7) conventional elastic ligature (CEL), with conventional bracket—control. All samples were subjected to mechanical static friction testing using the EMIC DL 2000 universal testing machine.

Statistical Analysis To assess the normality requirement, the Shapiro–Wilk test was used, which showed a non-normal distribution for the means of the groups (p < 0.05). Therefore, statistical tests were performed to assess the existence of statistically significant differences between the groups through the Kruskal–Wallis, followed by Dunn's test, pairwise comparison, p < 0.05.

Results The results obtained showed lower friction values for HFM (0.002 kgf), SLP (0.003 kgf), and LT8 (0.004 kgf)—these did not differ statistically from each other. These were followed by H3D (0.020 kgf), MLS (0.049 kgf), CEL (0.12 kgf), and, finally, MLT (0.21 kgf).

Conclusion The lowest friction value was found for the metal H ligature, similar to the self-ligating bracket and the “8” low-friction unconventional elastic. The resin H ligature presented intermediate friction values and the highest friction force was found for the MLT group.

Keywords

orthodontic brackets - orthodontic friction - orthodontic tooth movement - orthodontics

Authors' Contribution

All the authors contributed to the study conception and design. Design study, material preparation, data collection, writing of this manuscript were done by Jaisson Cenci, Mauro Carlos Agner Busato, and Veridiana Camilotti. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Jaisson Cenci, and all the authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All the authors read and approved the final manuscript.


Ethical Approval Statement

Not applicable.




Publication History

Article published online:
13 June 2023

© 2023. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Lee SM, Hwang CJ. A comparative study of frictional force in self-ligating brackets according to the bracket-archwire angulation, bracket material, and wire type. Korean J Orthod 2015; 45 (01) 13-19
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Henriques JFC, Higa RH, Semenara NT, Janson G, Fernandes TMF, Sathler R. Evaluation of deflection forces of orthodontic wires with different ligation types. Braz Oral Res 2017; 31 (49) e49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Cordasco G, Farronato G, Festa F, Nucera R, Parazzoli E, Grossi GB. In vitro evaluation of the frictional forces between brackets and archwire with three passive self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 2009; 31 (06) 643-646
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Elekdag-Turk S, Ozkalayci N, Isci D, Turk T. Color preferences of patients receiving elastic ligatures. Eur J Dent 2010; 4 (02) 171-174
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Montasser MA, El-Bialy T, Keilig L, Reimann S, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Force loss in archwire-guided tooth movement of conventional and self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 2014; 36 (01) 31-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Pacheco MR, Oliveira DD, Neto PS, Jansen WC. Evaluation of friction in self-ligating brackets subjected to sliding mechanics: an in vitro study. Dental Press J Orthod 2011; 16 (01) 107-115
    Google Scholar
  • 7 O'Dywer L, Littlewood SJ, Rahman S, Spencer RJ, Barber SK, Russell JS. A multi-center randomized controlled trial to compare a self-ligating bracket with a conventional bracket in a UK population: part 1: treatment efficiency. Angle Orthod 2016; 86 (01) 142-148
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Huang TH, Luk HS, Hsu YC, Kao CT. An in vitro comparison of the frictional forces between archwires and self-ligating brackets of passive and active types. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34 (05) 625-632
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wahab RMA, Idris H, Yacob H, Ariffin SHZ. Comparison of self- and conventional-ligating brackets in the alignment stage. Eur J Orthod 2012; 34 (02) 176-181
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Araújo RC, Bichara LM, Araújo AM, Normando D. Debris and friction of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets after clinical use. Angle Orthod 2015; 85 (04) 673-677
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Gandini P, Orsi L, Bertoncini C, Massironi S, Franchi L. In vitro frictional forces generated by three different ligation methods. Angle Orthod 2008; 78 (05) 917-921
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Lineberger MB, Franchi L, Cevidanes LHS, Huanca Ghislanzoni LT, McNamara Jr JA. Three-dimensional digital cast analysis of the effects produced by a passive self-ligating system. Eur J Orthod 2016; 38 (06) 609-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Tecco S, Di Iorio D, Nucera R, Di Bisceglie B, Cordasco G, Festa F. Evaluation of the friction of self-ligating and conventional bracket systems. Eur J Dent 2011; 5 (03) 310-317
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kumar S, Singh S, Hamsa PR R. et al. Evaluation of friction in orthodontics using various brackets and archwire combinations-an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8 (05) ZC33-ZC36
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Leite VV, Lopes MB, Gonini Júnior A, Almeida MR, Moura SK, Almeida RR. Comparison of frictional resistance between self-ligating and conventional brackets tied with elastomeric and metal ligature in orthodontic archwires. Dental Press J Orthod 2014; 19 (03) 114-119
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Monteiro MRG, Silva LE, Elias CN, Vilella OdeV. Frictional resistance of self-ligating versus conventional brackets in different bracket-archwire-angle combinations. J Appl Oral Sci 2014; 22 (03) 228-234
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Geremia JR, Oliveira PS, Motta RHL. Comparison of friction among self-ligating brackets and conventional brackets with different ligatures. OrthoScience 2015; 8 (29) 30-37
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Longoni JN, Lopes BMV, Freires IA, Dutra KL, Franco A, Paranhos LR. Self-ligating versus conventional metallic brackets on Streptococcus mutans retention: a systematic review. Eur J Dent 2017; 11 (04) 537-547
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Evolution of treatment mechanics and contemporary appliance design in orthodontics: a 40-year perspective. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015; 147 (06) 654-662
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Natt AS, Sekhon AK, Munjal S. et al. A comparative evaluation of static frictional resistance using various methods of ligation at different time intervals: an in vitro study. Int J Dent 2015; 2015: 407361
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hodecker L, Bourauel C, Braumann B, Kruse T, Christ H, Scharf S. Comparative in vitro analysis of the sliding resistance of a modern 3D-printed polymer bracket in combination with different archwire types. Clin Oral Investig 2022; 26 (05) 4049-4057
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Pasha A, Vishwakarma S, Narayan A, Vinay K, Shetty SV, Roy PP. Comparison of frictional forces generated by a new ceramic bracket with the conventional brackets using unconventional and conventional ligation system and the self-ligating brackets: an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7 (09) 108-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rudge P, Sherriff M, Bister D. A comparison of roughness parameters and friction coefficients of aesthetic archwires. Eur J Orthod 2015; 37 (01) 49-55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pereira GO, Gimenez CMM, Prieto L, Prieto MGL, Basting RT. Influence of ligation method on friction resistance of lingual brackets with different second-order angulations: an in vitro study. Dental Press J Orthod 2016; 21 (04) 34-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Higa RH, Henriques JFC, Janson G. et al. Force level of small diameter nickel-titanium orthodontic wires ligated with different methods. Prog Orthod 2017; 18 (01) 21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Rajendran S, Paulraj J, Rengan P, Jeyasundari J, Manivannan M. Corrosion behavior of metals in artificial saliva in presence of spirulina powder. J Dent Oral Hygiene 2009; 1 (01) 1-8
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Bandeira AMB, dos Santos MP, Pulitini G, Elias CN, da Costa MF. Influence of thermal or chemical degradation on the frictional force of an experimental coated NiTi wire. Angle Orthod 2011; 81 (03) 484-489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kim DY, Lim BS, Baek SH. Frictional property comparisons of conventional and self-ligating lingual brackets according to tooth displacement during initial leveling and alignment: an in vitro mechanical study. Korean J Orthod 2016; 46 (02) 87-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tageldin H, Llano-Pérula MC, Thevissen P, Celis JP, Willems G. Quantifying resistance to sliding in orthodontics: a systematic review. British Journal of Medicine & Medical Research, London. 2016; 17 (02) 1-30
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Savoldi F, Papoutsi A, Dianiskova S. et al. Resistance to sliding in orthodontics: misconception or method error? A systematic review and a proposal of a test protocol. Korean J Orthod 2018; 48 (04) 268-280
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Razavi EE, Nik TH, Hooshmand T, Farazdaghi H, Arefi AH. Surface characterization and frictional force between stainless steel brackets and archwires in orthodontic patients using chlorhexidine- and persica-containing mouthrinses: a randomized controlled trial. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2021; 18: 21
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Zhang H, Guo S, Wang D, Zhou T, Wang L, Ma J. Effects of nanostructured, diamondlike, carbon coating and nitrocarburizing on the frictional properties and biocompatibility of orthodontic stainless steel wires. Angle Orthod 2016; 86 (05) 782-788
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Pieroni M, Ferraz Facury AGB, Santamaria-Jr M. et al. Comparison of the friction forces delivered by different elastomeric patterns and metal ligature on conventional metal brackets with a NiTi arch wire versus a self-ligating system: an in vitro study. Int Orthod 2022; 20 (02) 100633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Takada M, Nakajima A, Kuroda S, Horiuchi S, Shimizu N, Tanaka E. In vitro evaluation of frictional force of a novel elastic bendable orthodontic wire. Angle Orthod 2018; 88 (05) 602-610
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 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 (01) 21-31
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar