Comparison of frictional resistance among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different combinations of arch wires: a finite elements study

The aim of this study was to compare frictional resistance among conventional, passive and active selfligating brackets using Finite Elements Analysis (FEA). Seventynine (79) slide tests were performed by combining an upper first bicuspid conventional bracket, 0.018" stainless steel wires and 0...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Acta odontológica latinoamericana 2016-09, Vol.29 (2), p.130-136
Hauptverfasser: Gómez, Sandra L, Montoya, Yesid, Garcia, Nora L, Virgen, Ana L, Botero, Javier E
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 136
container_issue 2
container_start_page 130
container_title Acta odontológica latinoamericana
container_volume 29
creator Gómez, Sandra L
Montoya, Yesid
Garcia, Nora L
Virgen, Ana L
Botero, Javier E
description The aim of this study was to compare frictional resistance among conventional, passive and active selfligating brackets using Finite Elements Analysis (FEA). Seventynine (79) slide tests were performed by combining an upper first bicuspid conventional bracket, 0.018" stainless steel wires and 0.010" ligature by means of an INSTRON 3345 load system to obtain average maximum static frictional resistance (MSFR). This value was compared to the FR (frictional resistance) obtained by simulation of a slide of the same combination by FEA following conventional bracket modeling by means of Computer Aided Design (CAD). Once the FEA was validated, bracket CADs were designed (upper right first bicuspid conventional, active and passive selfligating bracket) and bracket properties calculated. MSFR was compared among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different alloys and archwire cross sections such as 0.018", 0.019" x 0.025"and 0.020" x 0.020". Passive selfligating brackets had the lowest MSFR, followed by conventional brackets and active selfligating brackets. In conventional brackets, a 0.018" archwire produced a linear pattern of stress with maximum concentration at the center. Conversely, stress in 0.020 x 0.020" and 0.019 x 0.025" archwires was distributed across the width of the slot. The highest normal forces were 1.53 N for the 0.018" archwire, 4.85 N for the 0.020 x 0.020" archwire and 8.18 N for the 0.019 x 0.025" archwire. Passive selfligating brackets presented less frictional resistance than conventional and active selfligating brackets. Regardless of bracket type, greater contact area between the slot and the archwire and the spring clip increased frictional resistance.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835405256</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1835405256</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p126t-92642ce8137758342a12bfbd860d9489a4e1ca3a133ff8527015e4330bc940ca3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo1kMtOwzAQRSMkREvhF5CXLIjkV17sUMVLqsQG1tHEGbeGxA62W9Tv4Udx1bKake6ZezX3LJuzuuC5rIWcZZchfFJa0qqmF9mMV5Vgsubz7Hfpxgm8Cc4Sp4n2RkXjLAzEYzAhglVIYHR2TZSzO7RH9Y5A4nZJsj2ZIITDHnDQg1lDNInuPKgvjIH8mLghvdEafbpOLmNnLBxswiERvNokJqXdEyDaWBOR4IBjggMJcdvvr7JzDUPA69NcZB9Pj-_Ll3z19vy6fFjlE-NlzBteSq6wZqKqivQ0B8Y73fV1SftG1g1IZAoEMCG0Ts1UlBUohaCdaiRNyiK7PfpO3n1vMcR2NEHhMIBFtw0tq0UhacGLMqE3J3Tbjdi3kzcj-H37X6z4A05-d0w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1835405256</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of frictional resistance among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different combinations of arch wires: a finite elements study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Gómez, Sandra L ; Montoya, Yesid ; Garcia, Nora L ; Virgen, Ana L ; Botero, Javier E</creator><creatorcontrib>Gómez, Sandra L ; Montoya, Yesid ; Garcia, Nora L ; Virgen, Ana L ; Botero, Javier E</creatorcontrib><description>The aim of this study was to compare frictional resistance among conventional, passive and active selfligating brackets using Finite Elements Analysis (FEA). Seventynine (79) slide tests were performed by combining an upper first bicuspid conventional bracket, 0.018" stainless steel wires and 0.010" ligature by means of an INSTRON 3345 load system to obtain average maximum static frictional resistance (MSFR). This value was compared to the FR (frictional resistance) obtained by simulation of a slide of the same combination by FEA following conventional bracket modeling by means of Computer Aided Design (CAD). Once the FEA was validated, bracket CADs were designed (upper right first bicuspid conventional, active and passive selfligating bracket) and bracket properties calculated. MSFR was compared among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different alloys and archwire cross sections such as 0.018", 0.019" x 0.025"and 0.020" x 0.020". Passive selfligating brackets had the lowest MSFR, followed by conventional brackets and active selfligating brackets. In conventional brackets, a 0.018" archwire produced a linear pattern of stress with maximum concentration at the center. Conversely, stress in 0.020 x 0.020" and 0.019 x 0.025" archwires was distributed across the width of the slot. The highest normal forces were 1.53 N for the 0.018" archwire, 4.85 N for the 0.020 x 0.020" archwire and 8.18 N for the 0.019 x 0.025" archwire. Passive selfligating brackets presented less frictional resistance than conventional and active selfligating brackets. Regardless of bracket type, greater contact area between the slot and the archwire and the spring clip increased frictional resistance.</description><identifier>EISSN: 1852-4834</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27731482</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Argentina</publisher><subject>Dentistry ; Finite Element Analysis ; Humans ; Orthodontic Appliance Design ; Orthodontic Brackets ; Orthodontic Friction</subject><ispartof>Acta odontológica latinoamericana, 2016-09, Vol.29 (2), p.130-136</ispartof><rights>Sociedad Argentina de Pediatría.</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27731482$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gómez, Sandra L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montoya, Yesid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia, Nora L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Virgen, Ana L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botero, Javier E</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of frictional resistance among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different combinations of arch wires: a finite elements study</title><title>Acta odontológica latinoamericana</title><addtitle>Acta Odontol Latinoam</addtitle><description>The aim of this study was to compare frictional resistance among conventional, passive and active selfligating brackets using Finite Elements Analysis (FEA). Seventynine (79) slide tests were performed by combining an upper first bicuspid conventional bracket, 0.018" stainless steel wires and 0.010" ligature by means of an INSTRON 3345 load system to obtain average maximum static frictional resistance (MSFR). This value was compared to the FR (frictional resistance) obtained by simulation of a slide of the same combination by FEA following conventional bracket modeling by means of Computer Aided Design (CAD). Once the FEA was validated, bracket CADs were designed (upper right first bicuspid conventional, active and passive selfligating bracket) and bracket properties calculated. MSFR was compared among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different alloys and archwire cross sections such as 0.018", 0.019" x 0.025"and 0.020" x 0.020". Passive selfligating brackets had the lowest MSFR, followed by conventional brackets and active selfligating brackets. In conventional brackets, a 0.018" archwire produced a linear pattern of stress with maximum concentration at the center. Conversely, stress in 0.020 x 0.020" and 0.019 x 0.025" archwires was distributed across the width of the slot. The highest normal forces were 1.53 N for the 0.018" archwire, 4.85 N for the 0.020 x 0.020" archwire and 8.18 N for the 0.019 x 0.025" archwire. Passive selfligating brackets presented less frictional resistance than conventional and active selfligating brackets. Regardless of bracket type, greater contact area between the slot and the archwire and the spring clip increased frictional resistance.</description><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Finite Element Analysis</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Orthodontic Appliance Design</subject><subject>Orthodontic Brackets</subject><subject>Orthodontic Friction</subject><issn>1852-4834</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo1kMtOwzAQRSMkREvhF5CXLIjkV17sUMVLqsQG1tHEGbeGxA62W9Tv4Udx1bKake6ZezX3LJuzuuC5rIWcZZchfFJa0qqmF9mMV5Vgsubz7Hfpxgm8Cc4Sp4n2RkXjLAzEYzAhglVIYHR2TZSzO7RH9Y5A4nZJsj2ZIITDHnDQg1lDNInuPKgvjIH8mLghvdEafbpOLmNnLBxswiERvNokJqXdEyDaWBOR4IBjggMJcdvvr7JzDUPA69NcZB9Pj-_Ll3z19vy6fFjlE-NlzBteSq6wZqKqivQ0B8Y73fV1SftG1g1IZAoEMCG0Ts1UlBUohaCdaiRNyiK7PfpO3n1vMcR2NEHhMIBFtw0tq0UhacGLMqE3J3Tbjdi3kzcj-H37X6z4A05-d0w</recordid><startdate>201609</startdate><enddate>201609</enddate><creator>Gómez, Sandra L</creator><creator>Montoya, Yesid</creator><creator>Garcia, Nora L</creator><creator>Virgen, Ana L</creator><creator>Botero, Javier E</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201609</creationdate><title>Comparison of frictional resistance among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different combinations of arch wires: a finite elements study</title><author>Gómez, Sandra L ; Montoya, Yesid ; Garcia, Nora L ; Virgen, Ana L ; Botero, Javier E</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p126t-92642ce8137758342a12bfbd860d9489a4e1ca3a133ff8527015e4330bc940ca3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Finite Element Analysis</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Orthodontic Appliance Design</topic><topic>Orthodontic Brackets</topic><topic>Orthodontic Friction</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gómez, Sandra L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Montoya, Yesid</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Garcia, Nora L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Virgen, Ana L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Botero, Javier E</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Acta odontológica latinoamericana</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gómez, Sandra L</au><au>Montoya, Yesid</au><au>Garcia, Nora L</au><au>Virgen, Ana L</au><au>Botero, Javier E</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of frictional resistance among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different combinations of arch wires: a finite elements study</atitle><jtitle>Acta odontológica latinoamericana</jtitle><addtitle>Acta Odontol Latinoam</addtitle><date>2016-09</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>130</spage><epage>136</epage><pages>130-136</pages><eissn>1852-4834</eissn><abstract>The aim of this study was to compare frictional resistance among conventional, passive and active selfligating brackets using Finite Elements Analysis (FEA). Seventynine (79) slide tests were performed by combining an upper first bicuspid conventional bracket, 0.018" stainless steel wires and 0.010" ligature by means of an INSTRON 3345 load system to obtain average maximum static frictional resistance (MSFR). This value was compared to the FR (frictional resistance) obtained by simulation of a slide of the same combination by FEA following conventional bracket modeling by means of Computer Aided Design (CAD). Once the FEA was validated, bracket CADs were designed (upper right first bicuspid conventional, active and passive selfligating bracket) and bracket properties calculated. MSFR was compared among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different alloys and archwire cross sections such as 0.018", 0.019" x 0.025"and 0.020" x 0.020". Passive selfligating brackets had the lowest MSFR, followed by conventional brackets and active selfligating brackets. In conventional brackets, a 0.018" archwire produced a linear pattern of stress with maximum concentration at the center. Conversely, stress in 0.020 x 0.020" and 0.019 x 0.025" archwires was distributed across the width of the slot. The highest normal forces were 1.53 N for the 0.018" archwire, 4.85 N for the 0.020 x 0.020" archwire and 8.18 N for the 0.019 x 0.025" archwire. Passive selfligating brackets presented less frictional resistance than conventional and active selfligating brackets. Regardless of bracket type, greater contact area between the slot and the archwire and the spring clip increased frictional resistance.</abstract><cop>Argentina</cop><pmid>27731482</pmid><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier EISSN: 1852-4834
ispartof Acta odontológica latinoamericana, 2016-09, Vol.29 (2), p.130-136
issn 1852-4834
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1835405256
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Dentistry
Finite Element Analysis
Humans
Orthodontic Appliance Design
Orthodontic Brackets
Orthodontic Friction
title Comparison of frictional resistance among conventional, active and passive selfligating brackets with different combinations of arch wires: a finite elements study
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T09%3A17%3A50IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20frictional%20resistance%20among%20conventional,%20active%20and%20passive%20selfligating%20brackets%20with%20different%20combinations%20of%20arch%20wires:%20a%20finite%20elements%20study&rft.jtitle=Acta%20odontolo%CC%81gica%20latinoamericana&rft.au=G%C3%B3mez,%20Sandra%20L&rft.date=2016-09&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=130&rft.epage=136&rft.pages=130-136&rft.eissn=1852-4834&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1835405256%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1835405256&rft_id=info:pmid/27731482&rfr_iscdi=true