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/
id UDEA2_a1b99ab3cfffa2ae2bce21109c84a331
oai_identifier_str oai:bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co:10495/37960
network_acronym_str UDEA2
network_name_str Repositorio UdeA
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements Study
dc.title.translated.spa.fl_str_mv Comparación de la resistencia friccional entre brackets convencionales, de autoligado activo y pasivo con diferentes combinaciones de arcos: un estudio de elementos finitos
title Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements Study
spellingShingle Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements Study
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
title_short Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements Study
title_full Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements Study
title_fullStr Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements Study
title_sort Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements Study
dc.creator.fl_str_mv Gómez Gómez, Sandra Liliana
Montoya Góez, Yesid de Jesús
García, Nora L.
Virgen, Ana L.
Botero Torres, Javier Enrique
dc.contributor.author.none.fl_str_mv Gómez Gómez, Sandra Liliana
Montoya Góez, Yesid de Jesús
García, Nora L.
Virgen, Ana L.
Botero Torres, Javier Enrique
dc.contributor.researchgroup.spa.fl_str_mv Periodoncia, Salud y Educación
dc.subject.decs.none.fl_str_mv Análisis de Elementos Finitos
Finite Element Analysis
Diseño de Aparato Ortodóncico
Orthodontic Appliance Design
Soportes Ortodóncicos
Orthodontic Brackets
Fricción Ortodóntica
Orthodontic Friction
topic 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
dc.subject.meshuri.none.fl_str_mv 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
description 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.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv 2016
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv 2024-01-31T22:54:22Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv 2024-01-31T22:54:22Z
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv Artículo de investigación
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ART
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv 0326-4815
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv https://hdl.handle.net/10495/37960
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv 1852-4834
identifier_str_mv 0326-4815
1852-4834
url https://hdl.handle.net/10495/37960
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.ispartofjournalabbrev.spa.fl_str_mv Acta Odontol. Latinoam.
dc.relation.citationendpage.spa.fl_str_mv 136
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv 2
dc.relation.citationstartpage.spa.fl_str_mv 130
dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv 29
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv Acta Odontológica Latinoamericana
dc.rights.uri.*.fl_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/co/
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
rights_invalid_str_mv http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/co/
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.extent.spa.fl_str_mv 6
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv Sociedad Argentina de Investigación Odontológica
dc.publisher.place.spa.fl_str_mv Buenos Aires, Argentina
institution Universidad de Antioquia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/0f0cfa47-d959-475b-8866-16ba0d185f51/download
https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/f7eb7ecc-baa9-4393-a078-6cdc73700ceb/download
https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/5b66e2fb-9d64-4d1e-94f0-cf78643f8da4/download
https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/9e8cdd61-0fda-49fc-95c6-7efdeab58d7a/download
https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/0ee5b3d8-fb5e-407f-85f1-f71670f16a29/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv e925173e358404a77d11cb4d5d1ad87a
c0c92b0ffc8b7d22d9cf56754a416a76
8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33
75c9b8d8d3c4cd31921b6930386c03c4
8b4e2add56c573ec9e7da585dec18931
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Antioquia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv aplicacionbibliotecadigitalbiblioteca@udea.edu.co
_version_ 1851052350104403968
spelling Gómez Gómez, Sandra LilianaMontoya Góez, Yesid de JesúsGarcía, Nora L.Virgen, Ana L.Botero Torres, Javier EnriquePeriodoncia, Salud y Educación2024-01-31T22:54:22Z2024-01-31T22:54:22Z20160326-4815https://hdl.handle.net/10495/379601852-4834ABSTRACT: 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.RESUMEN: El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la resistencia friccional entre brackets convencionales, de autoligado pasivo y activo por medio del método de elementos finitos (MEF). Se realizaron setenta y nueve (79) deslizamientos combinando brackets convencionales de primer bicúspide superior con arcos de acero de 0,018” y ligadura metálica de 0,010” en una máquina INSTRON 3345, obteniendo el promedio de la resistencia estática máxima (REM). Este valor fue comparado con la resistencia friccional obtenida por simulación de un deslizamiento de la misma combinación por medio de MEF previo diseño asistido por computador (CAD) del bracket convencional. Una vez se validó MEF, se realizaron diseños CAD de los brackets (convencional, autoligado activo y pasivo de primer bicúspide superior derecho) y cálculos de sus propiedades. Se realizó una comparación entre brackets convencionales, brackets de autoligado activo y pasivo con diferentes aleaciones y secciones cruzadas de alambre 0.018”, 0.019” x 0.025” y 0.020” x 0.020”. Los brackets de autoligado pasivo mostraron la menor REM, seguidos de los brackets convencionales y finalmente los brackets de autoligado activo. En los brackets convencionales, el arco de 0,018” produjo un patrón lineal de stress en el fondo de la ranura, con su máxima concentración en el centro. Por el contrario, los arcos de 0.020” x 0.020” y 0.019 x 0.025” tuvieron una distribución de esfuerzos a través del ancho de la ranura. La mayor fuerza normal en los brackets convencionales fue para el arco 0.019”x 0.025” (8.18N), seguido por el arco 0.020 x 0.020” (4.85N) y finalmente el arco 0.018” (1.53N). Los brackets de autoligado pasivo presentaron menos resistencia friccional que los brackets convencionales y autoligado activo respectivamente. Independiente del tipo de bracket, una mayor área de contacto entre la ranura del bracket y el arco, y el spring clip aumentaron la resistencia friccional.COL00828976application/pdfengSociedad Argentina de Investigación OdontológicaBuenos Aires, Argentinahttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/co/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Comparison of Frictional Resistance Among Conventional, Active and Passive Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Combinations of Arch Wires: A Finite Elements StudyComparación de la resistencia friccional entre brackets convencionales, de autoligado activo y pasivo con diferentes combinaciones de arcos: un estudio de elementos finitosArtículo de investigaciónhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1https://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARThttp://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionAnálisis de Elementos FinitosFinite Element AnalysisDiseño de Aparato OrtodóncicoOrthodontic Appliance DesignSoportes OrtodóncicosOrthodontic BracketsFricción OrtodónticaOrthodontic Frictionhttps://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D020342https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D016382https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D016910https://id.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/D000070297Acta Odontol. Latinoam.136213029Acta Odontológica LatinoamericanaPublicationORIGINALGomezSandra_2016_Comparison_Frictional_Resistance.pdfGomezSandra_2016_Comparison_Frictional_Resistance.pdfArtículo de investigaciónapplication/pdf234613https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/0f0cfa47-d959-475b-8866-16ba0d185f51/downloade925173e358404a77d11cb4d5d1ad87aMD52trueAnonymousREADCC-LICENSElicense_rdflicense_rdfapplication/rdf+xml; charset=utf-8933https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/f7eb7ecc-baa9-4393-a078-6cdc73700ceb/downloadc0c92b0ffc8b7d22d9cf56754a416a76MD53falseAnonymousREADLICENSElicense.txtlicense.txttext/plain; charset=utf-81748https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/5b66e2fb-9d64-4d1e-94f0-cf78643f8da4/download8a4605be74aa9ea9d79846c1fba20a33MD54falseAnonymousREADTEXTGomezSandra_2016_Comparison_Frictional_Resistance.pdf.txtGomezSandra_2016_Comparison_Frictional_Resistance.pdf.txtExtracted texttext/plain30114https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/9e8cdd61-0fda-49fc-95c6-7efdeab58d7a/download75c9b8d8d3c4cd31921b6930386c03c4MD55falseAnonymousREADTHUMBNAILGomezSandra_2016_Comparison_Frictional_Resistance.pdf.jpgGomezSandra_2016_Comparison_Frictional_Resistance.pdf.jpgGenerated Thumbnailimage/jpeg15394https://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co/bitstreams/0ee5b3d8-fb5e-407f-85f1-f71670f16a29/download8b4e2add56c573ec9e7da585dec18931MD56falseAnonymousREAD10495/37960oai:bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.co:10495/379602025-03-26 20:58:09.445http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/co/open.accesshttps://bibliotecadigital.udea.edu.coRepositorio Institucional de la Universidad de Antioquiaaplicacionbibliotecadigitalbiblioteca@udea.edu.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