Mai AlSubaie1, Nabeel Talic1, Said Khawatmi2, Ahmad Alobeid2, Christoph Bourauel3, Tarek El-Bialy4. 1. Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. 2. Endowed Chair of Oral Technology, School of Dentistry, University of Bonn, Welschnonnenstr 17, 53111, Bonn, Germany. 3. Endowed Chair of Oral Technology, School of Dentistry, University of Bonn, Welschnonnenstr 17, 53111, Bonn, Germany. bourauel@uni-bonn.de. 4. Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the percentage of force loss generated during canine sliding movements in newly introduced ceramic brackets with metal brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of ceramic brackets, namely polycrystalline alumina (PCA) ceramic brackets (Clarity Advanced) and monocrystalline alumina (MCA) ceramic brackets (Inspire Ice) were compared with stainless steel (SS) brackets (Victory Series). All bracket groups (n = 5 each) were for the maxillary canines and had a 0.018-inch slot size. The brackets were mounted on an Orthodontic Measurement and Simulation System (OMSS) to simulate the canine retraction movement into the first premolar extraction space. Using elastic ligatures, 0.016 × 0.022″ (0.40 × 0.56 mm) stainless steel archwires were ligated onto the brackets. Retraction force was applied via a nickel-titanium coil spring with a nearly constant force of approximately 1 N. The OMSS measured the percentage of force loss over the retraction path by referring to the difference between the applied retraction force and actual force acting on each bracket. Between group comparisons were done with one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: The metal brackets revealed the lowest percentage of force loss due to friction, followed by the PCA and MCA ceramic bracket groups (67 ± 4, 68 ± 7, and 76 ± 3 %, respectively). There was no significant difference between SS and PCA brackets (p = 0.97), but we did observe significant differences between metal and MCA brackets (p = 0.03) and between PCA and MCA ceramic brackets (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: PCA ceramic brackets, whose slot surface is covered with an yttria-stabilized zirconia-based coating exhibited frictional properties similar to those of metal brackets. Frictional resistance resulted in an over 60 % loss of the applied force due to the use of elastic ligatures.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the percentage of force loss generated during canine sliding movements in newly introduced ceramic brackets with metal brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of ceramic brackets, namely polycrystalline alumina (PCA) ceramic brackets (Clarity Advanced) and monocrystalline alumina (MCA) ceramic brackets (Inspire Ice) were compared with stainless steel (SS) brackets (Victory Series). All bracket groups (n = 5 each) were for the maxillary canines and had a 0.018-inch slot size. The brackets were mounted on an Orthodontic Measurement and Simulation System (OMSS) to simulate the canine retraction movement into the first premolar extraction space. Using elastic ligatures, 0.016 × 0.022″ (0.40 × 0.56 mm) stainless steel archwires were ligated onto the brackets. Retraction force was applied via a nickel-titanium coil spring with a nearly constant force of approximately 1 N. The OMSS measured the percentage of force loss over the retraction path by referring to the difference between the applied retraction force and actual force acting on each bracket. Between group comparisons were done with one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: The metal brackets revealed the lowest percentage of force loss due to friction, followed by the PCA and MCA ceramic bracket groups (67 ± 4, 68 ± 7, and 76 ± 3 %, respectively). There was no significant difference between SS and PCA brackets (p = 0.97), but we did observe significant differences between metal and MCA brackets (p = 0.03) and between PCA and MCA ceramic brackets (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION:PCA ceramic brackets, whose slot surface is covered with an yttria-stabilized zirconia-based coating exhibited frictional properties similar to those of metal brackets. Frictional resistance resulted in an over 60 % loss of the applied force due to the use of elastic ligatures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Arch-guided tooth movement; Ceramic brackets; Force loss; Friction