Literature DB >> 10022188

Assessment of second-order clearances between orthodontic archwires and bracket slots via the critical contact angle for binding.

R P Kusy1, J Q Whitley.   

Abstract

Twenty-six archwires and 24 brackets were selected from among the hundreds of products available that nominally have from 18 to 22 mil bracket slots and 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, and/or 21 mil archwire sizes. After the archwires and brackets were dimensioned, a minimization-maximization algorithm was applied to the measurements in order to establish the likely boundaries of the critical contact angle for binding (thetac) as defined by the presence and absence of second-order clearance. From among the myriad archwire-bracket permutations possible, 64 combinations were identified--20 using the bracket slot as the controlling dimension and 44 using the bracket width. Using a previously derived mathematical expression that relates the dimensions of each archwire-bracket couple to its calculated thetac, the corresponding sets of indices were plotted. The results show that the maximum value of the calculated thetac can never exceed about 5 degrees , or else sliding mechanics will always be hampered. Other outcomes were validated experimentally using 5 of the 64 archwire-bracket couples by measuring the resistance to sliding (RS) at 15 different contact angles (theta) ranging from theta=0 degrees to theta=12 degrees and by subsequently determining a measured thetac. These values agreed with the calculated thetac values. When the practitioner knows the thetac, treatment time might be reduced because the teeth do not need to be over-aligned prior to employing sliding mechanics (i.e., by not making theta<<thetac) and, further, because the contact angle beyond which the binding phenomenon retards or halts tooth movement does not need to be exceeded (i.e., by not making theta>thetac) These results underscore the importance of exact wire and bracket dimensions on packaging; otherwise, sliding mechanics can be compromised by miscalculating thetac.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10022188     DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0071:AOSOCB>2.3.CO;2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Angle Orthod        ISSN: 0003-3219            Impact factor:   2.079


  17 in total

1.  Force system generated by elastic archwires with vertical V bends: a three-dimensional analysis.

Authors:  Madhur Upadhyay; Raja Shah; Donald Peterson; Takafumi Asaki; Sumit Yadav; Sachin Agarwal
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2017-04-01       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Orthodontic Bracket Manufacturing Tolerances and Dimensional Differences between Select Self-Ligating Brackets.

Authors:  Thomas W Major; Jason P Carey; David S Nobes; Paul W Major
Journal:  J Dent Biomech       Date:  2010-06-27

3.  Active and passive self-ligation: a myth? Part 1: torque control.

Authors:  Lorenz Martin Brauchli; Markus Steineck; Andrea Wichelhaus
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-11-07       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Comparative evaluation of torque prescription of commercially available 018Roth and 022MBT PEA brands in maxillary anterior teeth.

Authors:  Dinesh Chander Chaudhary; Vineet Sharma
Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India       Date:  2018-10-11

5.  A comparison of resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets under an increasing applied moment.

Authors:  Benjamin T Pliska; John P Beyer; Brent E Larson
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-05-13       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Effects of bracket design on critical contact angle.

Authors:  Xiaomo Liu; Peng Ding; Jiuxiang Lin
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  Comparison of orthodontic space closure using micro-osteoperforation and passive self-ligating appliances or conventional fixed appliances.

Authors:  Rashmi Mittal; Sonal Attri; Puneet Batra; Saurabh Sonar; Karan Sharma; Sreevatsan Raghavan
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 2.079

8.  The effect of perturbations on resistance to sliding in second-order moments comparing two different bracket types.

Authors:  Justin K Wong; Dan L Romanyk; Roger W Toogood; Giseon Heo; Jason P Carey; Paul W Major
Journal:  J Dent Biomech       Date:  2014-11-04

9.  Are torque values of preadjusted brackets precise?

Authors:  Alessandra Motta Streva; Flávio Augusto Cotrim-Ferreira; Daniela Gamba Garib; Paulo Eduardo Guedes Carvalho
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 2.698

10.  Force direction using miniscrews in sliding mechanics differentially affected maxillary central incisor retraction: Finite element simulation and typodont model.

Authors:  Nantaporn Ruenpol; Sedthawatt Sucharitpwatskul; Prasit Wattanawongskun; Nongluck Charoenworaluck
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2019-04-05       Impact factor: 2.080

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.