Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements Study

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 wire...

Full description

Autores:
Gómez Gómez, Sandra Liliana
Montoya Góez, Yesid de Jesús
García, Nora L.
Virgen, Ana L.
Botero Torres, Javier Enrique
Tipo de recurso:
Article of investigation
Fecha de publicación:
2016
Institución:
Universidad de Antioquia
Repositorio:
Repositorio UdeA
Idioma:
eng
OAI Identifier:
oai:bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co:10495/37960
Acceso en línea:
https://hdl.handle.net/10495/37960
Palabra clave:
Análisis de Elementos Finitos
Finite Element Analysis
Diseño de Aparato Ortodóncico
Orthodontic Appliance Design
Soportes Ortodóncicos
Orthodontic Brackets
Fricción Ortodóntica
Orthodontic Friction
https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D020342
https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D016382
https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D016910
https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D000070297
Rights
openAccess
License
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/co/
Description
Summary: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.