Literature DB >> 11113803

Evaluation of titanium brackets for orthodontic treatment: Part II--The active configuration.

R P Kusy1, P W O'grady.   

Abstract

After each archwire was ligated into a bracket with a 0.010-in stainless steel wire, both stainless steel and beta-titanium archwires (0.017- x 0.025-in) were slid through commercially pure titanium brackets (0.018-in slot size) at 34 degrees C in both the dry and wet conditions. As controls, stainless steel archwire versus stainless steel bracket couples were used with comparable dimensions. The drawing forces were measured at 5 angulations (0 degrees, 3 degrees, 7 degrees, 9 degrees, and 11 degrees ) for 5 normal forces (nominally 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, and 1.0 kg). Regression lines were determined for each frictional couple (P <.05). In the passive configuration, the kinetic frictional coefficients of control and test couples in the dry condition were comparable to previously reported values at 0.11 +/- 0.01 for stainless steel versus stainless steel, 0.12 +/- 0.00 for stainless steel versus titanium, and 0.26 +/- 0.02 for beta-titanium versus titanium. As the angulation was increased from 0 degrees to 11 degrees and the normal force was maintained at 0.2 kg, the resistance to sliding values increased by 208 g for stainless steel versus stainless steel, by 222 g for stainless steel versus titanium, and by 185 g for beta-titanium versus titanium. When the normal force was increased to 1.0 kg, the resistance to sliding values increased to 277 g, 246 g, and 245 g, respectively. Although resistance to sliding increased with angulation and normal force, the passive layer did not breakdown. Titanium brackets remained comparable to stainless steel brackets in the active configuration.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11113803     DOI: 10.1067/mod.2000.97818

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  6 in total

1.  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

2.  Resistance to Sliding in Clear and Metallic Damon 3 and Conventional Edgewise Brackets: an In vitro Study.

Authors:  Mohammad Karim Soltani; Farzaneh Golfeshan; Yoones Alizadeh; Jabraiel Mehrzad
Journal:  J Dent (Shiraz)       Date:  2015-03

3.  Comparative Evaluation of Friction Resistance of Titanium, Stainless Steel, Ceramic and Ceramic with Metal Insert Brackets with Varying Dimensions of Stainless Steel Wire: An In vitro Multi-center Study.

Authors:  B Sunil Kumar; Suresh Miryala; K Kiran Kumar; K Shameem; Ravindra Reddy Regalla
Journal:  J Int Oral Health       Date:  2014-09

4.  Friction Force Adjustment by an Innovative Covering System Applied with Superelastic NiTi Brackets and Wires-An In-Vitro Study.

Authors:  Andrea Wichelhaus; Tena Eichenberg; Philip Gruber; Elias Panos Bamidis; Thomas Stocker
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-06-15       Impact factor: 3.748

5.  Evaluation of stresses developed in different bracket-cement-enamel systems using finite element analysis with in vitro bond strength tests.

Authors:  Shaymaa E Elsaka; Shaza M Hammad; Noha F Ibrahim
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2014-04-16       Impact factor: 2.750

6.  Evaluation of surface roughness of the bracket slot floor--a 3D perspective study.

Authors:  Chetankumar O Agarwal; Ketan K Vakil; Avinash Mahamuni; Pawankumar Dnyandeo Tekale; Prasad V Gayake; Jeegar K Vakil
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 2.750

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.