The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

In-vitro investigation of the mechanical friction properties of a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing lingual bracket system under diverse tooth displacement condition

  • Kim, Do-Yoon (Private Practice) ;
  • Ha, Sang-Woon (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Cho, Il-Sik (Private Practice) ;
  • Yang, Il-Hyung (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University) ;
  • Baek, Seung-Hak (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University)
  • Received : 2018.07.12
  • Accepted : 2018.11.09
  • Published : 2019.03.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the static (SFF) and kinetic frictional forces (KFF) of a computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing lingual bracket (CAD/CAM-LB) with those of conventional LB (Con-LB) and Con-LB with narrow bracket width (Con-LB-NBW) under 3 tooth displacement conditions. Methods: The samples were divided into 9 groups according to combinations of 3 LB types (CAD/CAM-LB [Incognito], Con-LB [7th Generation, 7G], and Con-LB-NBW [STb]) with 3 displacement conditions (no displacement [control], maxillary right lateral incisor with 1-mm palatal displacement [MXLI-PD], and maxillary right canine with 1-mm gingival displacement [MXC-GD]; n = 6/group). While drawing a 0.016-inch copper or super-elastic nickel-titanium archwire with 0.5 mm/min for 5 minutes in a chamber maintained at $36.5^{\circ}C$, SFF and KFF were measured. The Kruskal-Wallis method with Bonferroni correction was performed. Results: The Incognito group demonstrated the highest SFF, followed by the 7G and STb groups ([STb-control, STb-MXLI-PD, Stb-MXC-GD] < [7G-MXC-GD, 7G-MXLI-PD, 7G-control] < [Incognito-MXLI-PD, Incognito-control, Incognito-MXC-GD]; p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in SFF among the 3 displacement conditions within each bracket group. Within each displacement condition, the Incognito group demonstrated the highest KFF, followed by the 7G and STb groups ([STb-control, STb-MXLI-PD] < Stb-MXC-GD < 7G-MXLI-PD < [7G-control, 7G-MXC-GD] < [7G-MXC-GD, Incognito-MXLI-PD, Incognito-control] < [Incognito-control, Incognito-MXC-GD]; p < 0.001). MXC-GD exhibited higher KFFs than MXLI-PD in the same bracket group. Conclusions: The slot design and ligation method of the CAD/CAM-LB system should be modified to reduce SFF and KFF during the leveling/alignment stage.

Keywords

References

  1. Fujita K. Multilingual-bracket and mushroom arch wire technique. A clinical report. Am J Orthod 1982;82:120-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90491-2
  2. Creekmore T. Lingual orthodontics--its renaissance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:120-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90253-9
  3. Slater RD. Speech and discomfort during lingual orthodontic treatment. J Orthod 2013;40 Suppl 1:S34-7. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000059
  4. Moran KI. Relative wire stiffness due to lingual versus labial interbracket distance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:24-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90292-7
  5. Wiechmann D, Rummel V, Thalheim A, Simon JS, Wiechmann L. Customized brackets and archwires for lingual orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:593-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.08.008
  6. Scuzzo G, Takemoto K. STb light lingual system. Hanover Park, IL: Quintessence; 2010.
  7. Scuzzo G, Takemoto K, Takemoto Y, Takemoto A, Lombardo L. A new lingual straight-wire technique. J Clin Orthod 2010;44:114-23; quiz 106.
  8. Lombardo L, Arreghini A, Al Ardha K, Scuzzo G, Takemoto K, Siciliani G. Wire load-deflection characteristics relative to different types of brackets. Int Orthod 2011;9:120-39.
  9. Park KH, Bayome M, Park JH, Lee JW, Baek SH, kook YA. New classification of lingual arch form in normal occlusion using three dimensional virtual models. Korean J Orthod 2015;45:74-81. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2015.45.2.74
  10. 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;46:87-95. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2016.46.2.87
  11. Zinelis S, Sifakakis I, Katsaros C, Eliades T. Microstructural and mechanical characterization of contemporary lingual orthodontic brackets. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:389-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjt086
  12. Eliades T. Dental materials in orthodontics. In: Graber LW, Vanarsdall RL Jr, Vig KWL, eds. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques. 5th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2011. p.1023-38.
  13. Demling A, Dittmer MP, Schwestka-Polly R. Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systems. Head Face Med 2009;5:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-5-27
  14. Lombardo L, Wierusz W, Toscano D, Lapenta R, Kaplan A, Siciliani G. Frictional resistance exerted by different lingual and labial brackets: an in vitro study. Prog Orthod 2013;14:37. https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-37
  15. Park JH, Lee YK, Lim BS, Kim CW. Frictional forces between lingual brackets and archwires measured by a friction tester. Angle Orthod 2004;74:816-24.
  16. Ozturk Ortan Y, Yurdakuloglu Arslan T, Aydemir B. A comparative in vitro study of frictional resistance between lingual brackets and stainless steel archwires. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:119-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq180
  17. Lalithapriya S, Kumaran NK, Rajasigamani K. In vitro assessment of competency for different lingual brackets in sliding mechanics. J Orthod Sci 2015;4:19-25. https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.149612
  18. Pereira GO, Gimenez CM, Prieto L, Prieto MG, Basting RT. Influence of ligation method on friction resistance of lingual brackets with different secondorder angulations: an in vitro study. Dental Press J Orthod 2016;21:34-40.
  19. Sifakakis I, Pandis N, Makou M, Katsaros C, Eliades T, Bourauel C. A comparative assessment of forces and moments generated by lingual and conventional brackets. Eur J Orthod 2013;35:82-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjr048
  20. Alobeid A, El-Bialy T, Khawatmi S, Dirk C, Jager A, Bourauel C. Comparison of the force levels among labial and lingual self-ligating and conventional brackets in simulated misaligned teeth. Eur J Orthod 2017;39:419-25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjw082
  21. Heo W, Baek SH. Friction properties according to vertical and horizontal tooth displacement and bracket type during initial leveling and alignment. Angle Orthod 2011;81:653-61. https://doi.org/10.2319/072310-431.1
  22. Seo YJ, Lim BS, Park YG, Yang IH, Ahn SJ, Kim TW, et al. Effect of tooth displacement and vibration on frictional force and stick-slip phenomenon in conventional brackets: a preliminary in vitro mechanical analysis. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:158-63. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju027
  23. Seo YJ, Lim BS, Park YG, Yang IH, Ahn SJ, Kim TW, et al. Effect of self-ligating bracket type and vibration on frictional force and stick-slip phenomenon in diverse tooth displacement conditions: an in vitro mechanical analysis. Eur J Orthod 2015;37:474-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju060
  24. Komori A, Fujisawa M, Iguchi S. KommonBase for precise direct bonding of lingual orthodontic brackets. Int Orthod 2010;8:14-27.
  25. Scuzzo G, Takemoto K, Takemoto Y, Scuzzo G, Lombardo L. A new self-ligation lingual bracket with square slots. J Clin Orthod 2011;45:682-90; quiz 692.
  26. Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of conventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized archwires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod 2004;74:202-11.
  27. Huntley PN. A modified over-tie for the ligation of $Incognito^{TM}$ lingual fixed appliances. J Orthod 2013;40:244-8. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000055
  28. Kim TK, Kim KD, Baek SH. Comparison of frictional forces during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of self-ligating brackets and archwires with a custom-designed typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:187.e15-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.013
  29. Lai WJ, Midorikawa Y, Kanno Z, Takemura H, Suga K, Soga K, et al. A new orthodontic force system for moment control utilizing the flexibility of common wires: evaluation of the effect of contractile force and hook length. J Formos Med Assoc 2018;117:71-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2017.03.002
  30. Yun D, Choi DS, Jang I, Cha BK, Clinical application of an intraoral scanner for serial evaluation of orthodontic tooth movement: a preliminary study. Korean J Orthod 2018;48:262-7. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2018.48.4.262

Cited by

  1. Three-Dimensional Digital Superimposition of Orthodontic Bracket Position by Using a Computer-Aided Transfer Jig System: An Accuracy Analysis vol.21, pp.17, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/s21175911