Next Article in Journal
Optimizing Automated Detection of Cross-Recessed Screws in Laptops Using a Neural Network
Next Article in Special Issue
Depth of Cure, Surface Characteristics, Hardness, and Brushing Wear of 4 Direct Restorative Materials in Paediatric Dentistry
Previous Article in Journal
Adaptive Mask-Based Interpretable Convolutional Neural Network (AMI-CNN) for Modulation Format Identification
Previous Article in Special Issue
Palatal Graft Harvesting Site Healing and Pain Management: What Is the Best Choice? An Umbrella Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Applied Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 14
10.3390/app14146303
applsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of the Sliding Resistance of Metallic, Composite and In-House 3D-Printed Brackets: An In Vitro Study

by
Luca Brucculeri
,
Federica Pellitteri
,
Mario Palone
and
Luca Lombardo
*
Department of Orthodontics, University of Ferrara, 44121 Ferrara, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14(14), 6303; https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146303
Submission received: 14 June 2024 / Revised: 3 July 2024 / Accepted: 16 July 2024 / Published: 19 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue State-of-the-Art of Dental Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Objective: To evaluate the differences in frictional resistance between in-house 3D-printed resin brackets (IH3DBs) and two types of commercially available brackets in combination with three different archwires. Methods: Friction tests were performed using a dynamometer and a millimetre sled to simulate first premolar post-extraction space closure. Three different brackets, namely PRIMO metallic brackets, Crystal composite brackets and in-house 3D-printed brackets, were tested in combination with three different archwires (0.016-inch NiTi, 0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi and 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS). Statistical analysis was performed to verify the differences in friction among the bracket and archwire combinations. For all the tests, the significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results: There were significant differences among the three brackets tested with both the 0.016-inch NiTi and 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwires (p = 0.026 and p = 0.017, respectively). Only tests with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi archwire yielded no statistically significant differences between the groups. The composite bracket generated clinically and statistically more friction than both the IH3DB and metallic bracket, with no differences between the latter two. Conclusions: The IH3DBs demonstrated comparable frictional resistance properties to the metal brackets and better than the composite brackets with all the archwires tested.

1. Introduction

Aesthetics represents an essential aspect of orthodontics, being the primary motivation behind patients seeking treatment [1,2]. Patients’ growing demand for the most invisible appliance possible has brought about an increasing use of alternative solutions to traditional metal labial brackets, such as aesthetic brackets [3]. Indeed, while stainless steel brackets (SS) are widely employed in labial orthodontic treatment [3], they have poor aesthetic proprieties. Ceramic aesthetic brackets, on the other hand, have superior optical properties but several mechanical disadvantages compared to metal ones, among which are an increased risk of enamel damage during debonding [4,5,6,7], lack of plastic deformation [4,5,6,7], a major risk of wing fracture [4,5,6,7] and greater frictional resistance than SS brackets [8,9,10,11,12,13]. This latter fact was confirmed by Karamouzos et al. [14], who conducted a comprehensive review of the literature [15,16,17,18,19,20] and reported that aesthetic brackets display higher frictional resistance values than various other commercially available brackets. In fact, it has been observed that the frictional behaviour of aesthetic brackets deters many orthodontists from using them [21]. Indeed, increased frictional resistance can cause the orthodontist to apply excessive force during treatment, which can lead to patient discomfort and anchorage loss, as well as to irreversible damage to the tooth-supporting tissues [16].
A potential alternative could be in-house 3D-printed resin brackets, thanks to the currently increasing range of three-dimensional printing applications in dentistry [22]. Computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technology has a relatively long history in dentistry, and combined with advanced 3D-imaging and modelling technologies, such as intraoral scanning and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), 3D-printing technology has found numerous applications. Research has demonstrated that stereolithography (SLA) and digital light processing (DLP) are the most accurate 3D-printing techniques [23], but CAD/CAM technology allows biocompatible, dimensionally accurate [24] and cheap custom resin brackets to be manufactured in-house. In-house 3D-printed resin brackets have better physical properties than ceramic ones, being in some cases equivalent to metal brackets [25,26,27], and Hodecker et al. found that 3D brackets have better sliding properties than commercial ones [27].
Due to the importance of the friction values during sliding mechanics in fixed appliance treatment, more studies are needed to compare the sliding resistance of in-house 3D-printed resin brackets and conventional brackets [25,26,27]. Hence, this study was designed to evaluate the differences in frictional resistance generated by in-house 3D-printed resin brackets (IH3DBs) versus commercially available brackets in combination with three different archwires. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in the friction values among the different brackets in the bracket/archwire configurations analysed.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sample

In this in vitro study, resin brackets (IH3DBs) 3D-printed in-house at XXXXXX School of Orthodontics were tested against two different commercially available 0.022 × 0.028-inch brackets and MBT prescription, namely PRIMO Mirabella (Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, PD, Italy) metal brackets and Crystal Genesis Orthodontics (Smile Stream Solutions Company, Castle Rock, CO, USA) transparent composite brackets. The IH3DBs were designed with a slot size of 0.022 × 0.028 inches and MBT prescription. Unlike conventional twin brackets on the market, the IH3DBs were designed with a single wing divided by a recess in the outer surface of the bracket body to help during bonding. The IH3DBs were printed using the desktop SprintRay PRO 95 printer (SprintRay Inc., Brunnenweg 11, DE-64331 Weiterstadt, Germany), which relies on digital light projection (DLP) technology [24]. As the resin for the 3D printing of temporary crowns, BEGO Verseosmile Temp (BEGO GmbH & Co., KG, 28359 Bremen, Germany) certified IIa with a flexural strength of ±80 Mpa and colour A2 on the Vita scale calibrated for the SprintRay Pro 95 printer was used and a print-layer thickness of 50 μm on the Z axis was adopted. After printing, the brackets have been cleaned in two steps with ethanol (96%) using an unheated ultrasonic bath for 3 min, then removed and sprayed with additional ethanol (96%) in order to fully rinse off any remaining resin residue. The post-curing process fulfilled the manufacturer’s instructions, with two cycle of 90 s in the light-curing device HiLite-Power (Kulzer S.r.l., 20134 Milano, Italy). Azurea pin gauges (Azuréa Technologies S.A., Moutier, Switzerland) with increments of 0.002 mm were used to ensure the correct height of each slot. Finally, an IKA B500 optical microscope (Optika S.r.l, Ponteranica, Italy) was used to verify that the gauge was in full contact with the bottom of the bracket slot.
The samples comprised three brackets of each type analysed (teeth 1.2, 1.3 and 1.5), making a total of nine brackets. The result of the power analysis on three brackets based on a previous study [27] for calculating the minimum sample size with a power (1-β) of 0.80 and a type I error (α) of 0.05 yielded a minimum sample size of total of 15 configurations, 5 configurations per archwire.

2.2. Study Set-Up

This in vitro study simulated space closure in a first premolar extraction case using a millimetre sled (Figure 1).
Three different pins were used to support the metallic and ceramic brackets. The metallic brackets were laser-soldered to the pin, while the composite bracket was glued with cyanoacrylate adhesive. The IH3DB was designed and successively printed directly with the pin in contact with the base area of the bracket (Figure 2).
The configuration allowed the pins on brackets 1.2 and 1.5 to perform only horizontal movements to modify the inter-bracket distance, while the pin on tooth 1.3 could be moved to create different configurations.
First, the pins on brackets 1.2 and 1.5 were fixed at a distance of 17 mm and 8 mm, respectively, from the 1.3 to simulate a first premolar post-extraction treatment. Next, a full-thickness archwire was engaged in the brackets to be welded and inserted into the calibrated grooves of the guide, allowing the brackets to be accurately positioned on the rods. In this way, the device set-up reproduced the passive configuration, ensuring that the archwire sliding would be passive and free during the tests. The archwires tested were fixed to the brackets using 3M buccal AlastiK silicone ligatures (3M Italia, Milan, 20096, Italy), which were replaced at each wire disassembly–reassembly. All the measurements were obtained after having irrigated the wire with water, using a pipette, during the traction, in order to simulate the conditions of the oral cavity. The friction tests were performed at the University of XXXXXX Engineering Department using a dynamometer (INSTRON Corp., 1011, Norwood, MA, USA), a testing machine for analysing the mechanical properties of materials using compression or tensile tests.
The customized set-up was anchored to the Instron plate using a stud, and the wires were locked in the dynamometer jaws. The Instron machine applied a speed of 5 mm/min to all the tested wires [27].
Three wires were tested: 0.016-inch NiTi, 0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi and 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel (SS) small UNAform SWM archwires (Sweden & Martina, Due Carrare, PD, Italy). For each archwire, five different configurations were explored: 0°, 3°, 6° and 10° of mesiodistal tip variation and 1 mm vertical translation (0° mesiodistal tip) of bracket 1.3.
In each test, the maximum friction peak (N) between the wire and the brackets was recorded. The tests for each archwire were repeated three times, and then the average was calculated. After 15 days (T1), all the tests were repeated using new brackets, new archwires and new sets of ligatures by the same expert clinician (L.B.).

2.3. Statistical Analysis

All the results were recorded using Labview 5.8 software and then organized in Excel files. First, the friction data were subjected to descriptive analysis. Then, the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test was applied to test whether there was a statistically significant difference in the distributions of the values of the variables 0.016-inch NiTi, 0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi and 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS at T0 among the three different bracket groups (metallic, composite and IH3DB). In the event of significance, Bonferroni’s pairwise comparison was applied.
Non-parametric Wilcoxon testing was used to compare the medians of two variables recorded at T0 and T1 on the same sample units and evaluate if there was a statistically significant difference in the medians. The test was performed for each archwire/bracket configuration.
The statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS v28 software. For all the tests, the significance level was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

The friction values, expressed in Newtons, collected for each different configuration are presented in Table 1. The results reported for the 0.016-inch Niti archwire the maximum value of friction with 8.432 Nw in the 10° of tip configuration for the composite brackets and the lowest value of friction with 3.627 Nw in the 0° of tip configuration for the HD3DB. For the 0.019 × 0.025-inch Niti archwire, the maximum value of friction with 20.07 Nw was again in the 10° of tip configuration for the composite brackets and the lowest value of friction with 5.125 Nw in the 0° of tip configuration for the metallic brackets. Finally, for the 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwire, the maximum value of friction with 25.02° Nw in the 1 mm vertical translation configuration for the composite brackets and the lowest value of friction with 4.221 Nw in the 0° of tip configuration for the HD3DB.
The Kruskal–Wallis test was used to verify the equality of the distributions among the different bracket types and the three archwires tested (Table 2). The test revealed significant differences among the three brackets tested with both the 0.016-inch NiTi and 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwires, with p being 0.026 and 0.017, respectively. Only the 0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi archwire yielded no statistically differences between the bracket groups (p = 0.336). Pairwise comparisons were performed in order to investigate the significance of the differences between groups.
As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, the composite bracket performed significantly worse than the metallic brackets and IH3DBs with both the 0.016-inch NiTi and 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwires. The test revealed statistically significant differences for the metallic and composite bracket comparison, with the p being 0.016 for the 0.016-inch Niti wire, and for the IH3DB and composite bracket, with the p being 0.024 for the same archwire. Similarly, the same comparison resulted in a statistically significant difference for the 0.019 × 0.025 SS archwire, with the p being, respectively, 0.007 and 0.028 (see also Figure 3 and Figure 4).
As shown in Figure 5, the IH3DBs and metallic brackets presented similar distribution values, while the composite brackets displaying a broader and greater mean distribution with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi (p > 0.05).
Finally, a non-parametric Wilcoxon test was performed to compare the medians of two variables detected on the same sample (at T0 and T1) and to avoid intra-operator measurement error (Table 5).
For all the tests performed on the groups analysed (composite, IH3DB and metallic bracket), the null hypothesis of equal values was accepted (p > 0.05), and the differences observed between the medians of the T0 and T1 variables were not statistically significant for any group analysed.

4. Discussion

In orthodontics, friction is a clinical challenge, especially when relying on sliding mechanics. Physical/mechanical factors that influence sliding resistance include the archwire properties (material, cross-sectional section, shape/size, surface texture, and stiffness), ligature type and method, and bracket material and design. There are also biological factors to consider, such as saliva, plaque and biofilms [18,19,20].
The biomechanics required for orthodontic tooth movement cause friction at the slot–archwire interface, and this can reduce the applied forces by as much as 12–60% [25,26,27,28]. Hence, frictional resistance must be carefully examined in order to achieve an optimal orthodontic treatment outcome. With this in mind, the aim of this research was to evaluate the differences in the friction properties between a new, modern, in-house 3D-printed resin bracket (IH3DB) and commonly used metallic and aesthetic brackets, all in combination with three different archwires types.
Among the three types of buccal brackets investigated (composite, IH3DB and metallic bracket), the greatest frictional resistance test values were recorded for the composite brackets in all the planned tip and translation configurations (described in Table 1). This is in accordance with the literature, in which various authors [9,10,11,12,13] report having found higher frictional resistance values for aesthetic brackets than metal ones. In fact, their poor biomechanical frictional proprieties prevent many orthodontists from using them [21]; indeed, high frictional resistance can force the orthodontist to use heavy forces during labial orthodontic treatment. This can induce anchorage loss, patient discomfort and irreversible damage to the tooth-supporting tissues [16].
The higher resistance value of such brackets can be attributed to the intrinsic characteristics of the bracket material, including their surface hardness, roughness and stiffness [20]. In comparison, the present study shows that IH3DBs express friction values that may be slightly higher than metal ones but are significantly lower than the aesthetic brackets analysed. Specifically, significant pairwise differences were found between IH3DBs and composite brackets, and metallic and composite brackets, in combination with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwire (p = 0.007 and p = 0.028, respectively), while no significant differences in performance were found between IH3DBs and metallic brackets with the same type of archwire (Table 4). It is possible to conclude that, during sliding mechanics, IH3DBs and metal brackets offer comparably lower frictional resistance, while aesthetic brackets produce greater resistance to sliding. Othman and co-workers reported in their study on the fracture resistance of temporary crowns using the BEGO Verseosmile Temp material and a digital light-processing (DLP) printer, concluding that provisional crowns moulded with this material can be considered a viable alternative for long-term provisional restorations [29].
These results are confirmed by the literature findings that the smooth slot surfaces of metallic brackets cause less frictional resistance than those of aesthetic ones. Indeed, the latter have greater surface roughness and friction, which can increase the force expressed to range from 200 g to 500 g, more than conventional metallic brackets. This is due to both the topographical surface of the ceramic and the wire detritus that settles in the slot, especially on its base and in its edges [30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37]. Indeed, conventional metallic brackets also display increased surface roughness after clinical use [38].
It is likely that the slot surface also plays a role in the lower frictional resistance results associated with IH3DBs. In particular, it could be hypothesized that the 3D-printing resin has a lower deterioration resistance than nickel-titanium and stainless-steel archwires. This likely induces deterioration of the microparticles and microlayers present in the slot base produced by the 3D-printing production processes. This phenomenon could make the slot surface smoother and more uniform, facilitating sliding mechanics. Nevertheless, further electron microscopic studies are needed to confirm this hypothesis.
As previously mentioned, in addition to the bracket material, the archwire type and its size play a significant role in the friction generated in the system. For the purposes of this study, two of the most commonly used types of archwire, nickel-titanium and stainless steel, of two different cross-sections, 0.016-inch and 0.019 × 0.025-inch, were tested in combination with the three types of bracket investigated. The results show that stainless-steel archwires seem to generate less frictional resistance than nickel-titanium archwires with the same cross-section (Table 1). Previous studies comparing the frictional resistance of these two alloys have shown conflicting results [39,40]; as demonstrated by Kusy et al. [9], the wire will deflect more as the stiffness of the wire decreases, forming a greater angle of engagement with the base of the slot, thereby possibly leading to greater friction. However, Cacciafesta et al. [18] found no differences in their study comparing nickel-titanium and stainless-steel archwires. This variability in results is probably due to the different measurement methods adopted. Indeed, the authors compared the different alloys with a passive configuration between the brackets, a situation rarely found in clinical reality [18]. Moreover, the literature demonstrates that elastomeric ligatures increase friction with the archwires [31].
Several studies in the literature have investigated frictional resistance during labial orthodontic treatment [9,10,11,12,13,15,17,18,19,20,30,36,40], but only one previous study has compared frictional resistance between metallic, aesthetic and 3D-printed brackets. Specifically, Hodecker et al. [28] conducted an analysis of the frictional resistance associated with 3D-printed brackets, but they performed their tests by exchanging only one bracket on the model with the investigated ones; the other metal brackets were kept in place during each test, and this could have altered the friction results. Moreover, in Hodecker et al.’s study [28], the tip and translation variations were not analysed.
This study too has limitations. In particular, the biological intraoral context was simulated by irrigating the wire with water using a pipette before beginning traction and not a combination throughout the testing. Moreover, just one type on elastic ligatures has been tested. Hence, further studies on in-house 3D-printed resin brackets are needed in order expand on our findings.
Mechanical in vivo studies are needed to evaluate IH3DBs’ frictional resistance intraorally in order to provide orthodontists with more comprehensive knowledge of the biomechanical properties of this promising aesthetic device. Furthermore, although the resin used has IIa certification, it should be considered that further in vivo studies should analyse the possibility of the dispersion of resin particles within the oral cavity and its possible toxicity. Finally, further in vivo studies are needed to evaluate the effects of biological factors on friction [18,19,20]. Among the biological factors influencing friction resistance, plaque certainly plays a key role. Which form of brackets causes more plaque accumulation is a debated topic in the scientific literature, which has not yet found a common consensus. However, given the design of the IH3DBs, which feature a single fin that allows for better brushing, plaque accumulation is assumed to be lower, thus decreasing the friction resistance.

5. Conclusions

In this comparison of the sliding resistance generated by IH3DBs versus commercial metal and aesthetic brackets, the IH3DBs displayed better frictional resistance properties than the composite brackets, comparable to metal ones, in all the tip and translation configurations examined. There were significant differences among the three brackets tested with both the 0.016-inch NiTi and 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwires (p = 0.026 and p = 0.017, respectively). Only the tests with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi archwire yielded no statistically significant differences between the groups. Other studies on this topic are needed to improve and optimize the IH3DBs’ physical characteristics, but IH3DBs show promise as a new, aesthetic, alternative to metal brackets for labial orthodontic treatment.

Author Contributions

Conceptualisation, L.L., M.P. and L.B.; methodology, L.L., M.P. and L.B.; software, L.B.; validation, L.L., M.P. and L.B.; formal analysis, F.P. and L.B.; investigation, L.B.; resources, L.L., M.P. and L.B.; data curation, F.P. and L.B.; writing—original draft preparation, F.P.; writing—review and editing, F.P. and M.P.; visualisation, L.L., M.P. and L.B.; supervision, L.L., M.P. and L.B.; project administration, L.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and it was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the University of Ferrara (protocol code 19/2023, 19 January 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All authors ensured that all the data and materials, as well as software application or custom code, support their published claims and comply with field standards. The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the corresponding author on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Wedrychowska-Szulc, B.; Syryńska, M. Patient and parent motivation for orthodontic treatment—A questionnaire study. Eur. J. Orthod. 2010, 32, 447–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Rosvall, M.D.; Fields, H.W.; Ziuchkovski, J.; Rosenstiel, S.F.; Johnston, W.M. Attractiveness, acceptability, and value of orthodontic appliances. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009, 135, 276.e1–276.e12; discussion 276–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Gottlieb, E.L.; Nelson, A.H.; Vogels, D.S. JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures part 1: Results and trends. J. Clin. Orthod. 1996, 30, 615–629. [Google Scholar]
  4. Russell, J.S. Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J. Orthod. 2005, 32, 146–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Aslan, B.I.; Uzuner, F.D. Current Approaches in Orthodontics, 1st ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 5–23. [Google Scholar]
  6. Viazis, A.D.; DeLong, R.; Bevis, R.R.; Douglas, W.H.; Speidel, T.M. Enamel surface abrasion from ceramic orthodontic brackets: A special case report. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1989, 96, 514–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Kitahara-Ceia, F.M.; Mucha, J.N.; dos Santos, P.A.M. Assessment of enamel damage after removal of ceramic brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2008, 134, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Articolo, L.C.; Kusy, R.P. Influence of angulation on the resistance to sliding in fixed appliances. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1999, 115, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kusy, R.P.; Whitley, J.Q. Coefficients of friction for arch wires in stainless steel and polycrystalline alumina bracket slots. I: The dry state. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1990, 98, 300–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Ireland, A.J.; Sherriff, M.; McDonald, F. Effect of bracket and wire composition on frictional forces. Eur. J. Orthod. 1991, 13, 322–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Keith, O.; Jones, S.P.; Davies, E.H. The influence of bracket material, ligation force and wear on frictional resistance of orthodontic brackets. Br. J. Orthod. 1993, 20, 109–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Loftus, B.P.; Artun, J.; Nicholls, J.I.; Alonzo, T.A.; Stoner, J.A. Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1999, 116, 336–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bazakidou, E.; Nanda, R.; Duncanson, M.G.; Sinha, P. Evaluation of frictional resistance in esthetic brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1997, 112, 138–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Karamouzos, A.; Athanasiou, A.E.; Papadopoulos, M.A. Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1997, 112, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Kusy, R.P.; Whitley, J.Q. Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin. Orthod. 1997, 3, 166–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Read-Ward, G.E.; Jones, S.P.; Davies, E.H. A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br. J. Orthod. 1997, 24, 309–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Kapur, R.; Sinha, P.K.; Nanda, R.S. Comparison of frictional resistance in titanium and stainless-steel brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1999, 116, 271–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Cacciafesta, V.; Sfondrini, M.F.; Scribante, A.; Klersy, C.; Auricchio, F. Evaluation of friction of conventional and metal-insert ceramic brackets in various bracket archwire combinations. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2003, 124, 403–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Wadhwa, R.K.; Kwon, H.K.; Sciote, J.J.; Close, J.M. Frictional resistance in ceramic and metal brackets. J. Clin. Orthod. 2004, 38, 35–38. [Google Scholar]
  20. Saunders, C.R.; Kusy, R.P. Surface topography and frictional characteristics of ceramic brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1994, 106, 76–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Proffit, W.R. Contemporary Orthodontics; Mosby Inc.: St. Louis, MO, USA, 2000; pp. 385–416, 556. [Google Scholar]
  22. Dawood, A.; Marti, B.M.; Sauret-Jackson, V. 3D printing in dentistry. Br. Dent. J. 2015, 219, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Etemad-Shahidi, Y.; Qallandar, O.B.; Evenden, J.; Alifui-Segbaya, F.; Ahmed, K.E. Accuracy of 3-Dimensionally Printed Full-Arch Dental Models: A Systematic Review. J. Clin. Med. 2020, 9, 3357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Brucculeri, L.; Carpanese, C.; Palone, M.; Lombardo, L. In-House 3D-Printed vs. Conventional Bracket: An In Vitro Comparative Analysis of Real and Nominal Bracket Slot Heights. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 10120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Papageorgiou, S.N.; Polychronis, G.; Panayi, N.; Zinelis, S.; Eliades, T. New aesthetic in-house 3D-printed brackets: Proof of concept and fundamental mechanical properties. Prog. Orthod. 2022, 23, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Panayi, N.C. In-house three-dimensional designing and printing customized brackets. J. World Fed. Orthod. 2022, 11, 190–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Albertini, P.; Franciosi, F.; Palone, M.; Mollica, F.; Cremonini, F. Comparative Analysis of Sliding Resistance of Different Lingual Systems. Pesqui. Bras. Odontopediatria Clínica Integr. 2022, 21, e210025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hodecker, L.; Bourauel, C.; Braumann, B.; Kruse, T.; Christ, H.; Scharf, S. Comparative in vitro analysis of the sliding resistance of a modern 3D-printed polymer bracket in combination with different archwire types. Clin. Oral. Investig. 2022, 26, 4049–4057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Othman, A.; Sandmair, M.; Alevizakos, V.; von See, C. The fracture resistance of 3D-printed versus milled provisional crowns: An in vitro study. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0285760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Camporesi, M.; Bulhoes Galvão, M.; Tortamano, A.; Dominguez, G.C.; Defraia, N.; Defraia, E.; Franchi, L. Ceramic brackets and low friction: A possible synergy in patients requiring multiple MRI scanning. J. Orofac. Orthop. 2016, 77, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Shivapuja, P.K.; Berger, J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1994, 106, 472–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Parmagnani, E.A.; Basting, R.T. Effect of sodium bicarbonate air abrasive polishing on attrition and surface micromorphology of ceramic and stainless-steel brackets. Angle Orthod. 2012, 82, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Franciscone, M.F.; Janson, G.; Henriques, J.F.; Freitas, K.M. Evaluation of the force generated by gradual deflection of orthodontic wire in conventional metallic, esthetic, and self-ligating brackets. J. Appl. Oral. Sci. 2016, 24, 496–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Araujo, R.C.; Bishara, L.M.; Araújo, A.M.; Normando, D. Debris and friction of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets after clinical use. Angle Orthod. 2015, 85, 673–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mascarelo, A.C.; Godoi, A.P.; Furletti, V.; Custódio, W.; Valdrighi, H.C. Evaluation of friction in metal, ceramic and self-ligation brackets sub-mitted to sliding mechanics. Rev. Odontol. UNESP 2018, 47, 244–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Tecco, S.; Di Lorio, D.; Cordasco, G.; Verrocchi, I.; Festa, F. An in vitro investigation of the influence of self-ligating brackets, low friction ligatures, and archwire on frictional resistance. Eur. J. Orthod. 2007, 29, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Galavotti Viana, A.R.; Carneiro, D.P.A.; Carneiro, P.A.; Correr, A.B.; Vedovello, S.A.S.; Valdrighi, H.C. Comparison of friction of metallic and ceramic brackets during sliding mechanics after prophylaxis with sodium bicarbonate jet: An in vitro study. Int. Orthod. 2021, 19, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Cury, S.E.; Aliaga-Del Castillo, A.; Pinzan, A.; Sakoda, K.L.; Bellini-Pereira, S.A.; Janson, G. Orthodontic brackets friction changes after clinical use: A systematic review. J. Clin. Exp. Dent. 2019, 11, e482–e490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Angolkar, P.V.; Kapila, S.; Duncanson, M.G., Jr.; Nanda, R.S. Evaluation of friction between ceramic brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1990, 98, 499–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Tselepis, M.; Brockhurst, P.; West, V.C. The dynamic frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and arch wires. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 1994, 106, 131–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Applsci 14 06303 g001
Figure 1. Millimetre sled used to simulate a first premolar post-extraction treatment.
Figure 1. Millimetre sled used to simulate a first premolar post-extraction treatment.
Applsci 14 06303 g001
Applsci 14 06303 g002
Figure 2. IH3DB design directly connected to the pins.
Figure 2. IH3DB design directly connected to the pins.
Applsci 14 06303 g002
Applsci 14 06303 g003
Figure 3. Kruskal–Wallis independent samples plot of the friction values (N) yielded by the composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets with the 0.016-inch NiTi archwire.
Figure 3. Kruskal–Wallis independent samples plot of the friction values (N) yielded by the composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets with the 0.016-inch NiTi archwire.
Applsci 14 06303 g003
Applsci 14 06303 g004
Figure 4. Kruskal–Wallis independent samples plot of the friction values (N) yielded by the composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwire.
Figure 4. Kruskal–Wallis independent samples plot of the friction values (N) yielded by the composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwire.
Applsci 14 06303 g004
Applsci 14 06303 g005
Figure 5. Kruskal–Wallis independent samples plot of the friction values (N) yielded by the composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi archwire.
Figure 5. Kruskal–Wallis independent samples plot of the friction values (N) yielded by the composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi archwire.
Applsci 14 06303 g005
Table 1. Mean frictional values (N) and standard deviations.
Table 1. Mean frictional values (N) and standard deviations.
Configuration
0° Tip3° Tip6° Tip10° Tip1 mm Vertical Translation
HD3DBCompositeMetallicHD3DBCompositeMetallicHD3DBCompositeMetallicHD3DBCompositeMetallicHD3DBCompositeMetallic
0.016-inch Niti 3.627 ± 0.0904.628 ± 0.1433.997 ± 0.1114.08 ± 0.0925.187 ± 0.1434.134 ± 0.0454.314 ± 0.0387.133 ± 0.1274.26 ± 0.0255.178 ± 0.0908.432 ± 0.1015.307 ± 0.5414.411 ± 0.6516.746 ± 0.3063.836 ± 0.423
0.019 × 0.025-inch Niti 5.976 ± 0.0319.028 ± 0.0655.125 ± 0.0309.195 ± 0.13310.42 ± 0.1267.35 ± 0.23710.34 ± 0.16012.55 ± 0.3359.2 ± 0.22810.79 ± 0.13020.07 ± 0.16215.27 ± 0.15411.64 ± 0.24018 ± 0.16713.13 ± 0.371
0.019 × 0.025-inch SS 4.221 ± 0.03113.95 ± 0.1474.668 ± 0.2706.364 ± 0.35914.56 ± 0.2049.251 ± 0.2488.549 ± 0.47316.13 ± 0.11213.72 ± 0.15314.17 ± 0.25922.85 ± 0.13514.11 ± 0.20710.13 ± 0.14025.02 ± 0.07810.29 ± 0.272
Table 2. Kruskal–Wallis independent-samples testing of the composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets.
Table 2. Kruskal–Wallis independent-samples testing of the composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets.
ArchwireSig. a,b
0.016-inch NiTi0.026 *
0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi0.336
0.019 × 0.025-inch SS0.017 *
a The significance level is 0.050. b Asymptotic significance is displayed. * p < 0.05.
Table 3. Bonferroni’s pairwise comparison of the three brackets groups (composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets) in configuration with 0.016-inch NiTi archwire.
Table 3. Bonferroni’s pairwise comparison of the three brackets groups (composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets) in configuration with 0.016-inch NiTi archwire.
Sample 1–Sample 2Test StatisticStd. ErrorStd. Test StatisticSig.Adj. Sig. a
Metallic–IH3DB0.4002.8280.1410.8881.000
Metallic–Composite6.8002.8282.4040.016 *0.049
IH3DB–Composite6.4002.8282.2630.024 *0.071
a The significance level is 0.050. * p < 0.05.
Table 4. Bonferroni’s pairwise comparison of the three brackets groups (composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets) with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwire.
Table 4. Bonferroni’s pairwise comparison of the three brackets groups (composite, IH3DB and metallic brackets) with the 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS archwire.
Sample 1–Sample 2Test StatisticStd. ErrorStd. Test StatisticSig.Adj. Sig. a
IH3DB–Metallic−1.4002.828−0.4950.6211.000
IH3DB–Composite7.6002.8282.6870.007 *0.022
Metallic–Composite6.2002.8282.1920.028 *0.085
a The significance level is 0.050. * p < 0.05.
Table 5. Non-parametric Wilcoxon test to compare the medians of two variables (T0–T1).
Table 5. Non-parametric Wilcoxon test to compare the medians of two variables (T0–T1).
ComparisonArchwireSignificance
Composite bracketT0–T10.016-inch NiTi0.225
0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi0.345
0.019 × 0.025-inch SS0.223
IH3DBT0–T10.016-inch NiTi0.080
0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi0.345
0.019 × 0.025-inch SS0.786
Metallic
bracket		T0–T10.016-inch NiTi0.500
0.019 × 0.025-inch NiTi0.893
0.019 × 0.025-inch SS0.500
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Brucculeri, L.; Pellitteri, F.; Palone, M.; Lombardo, L. Comparison of the Sliding Resistance of Metallic, Composite and In-House 3D-Printed Brackets: An In Vitro Study. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 6303. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146303

AMA Style

Brucculeri L, Pellitteri F, Palone M, Lombardo L. Comparison of the Sliding Resistance of Metallic, Composite and In-House 3D-Printed Brackets: An In Vitro Study. Applied Sciences. 2024; 14(14):6303. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146303

Chicago/Turabian Style

Brucculeri, Luca, Federica Pellitteri, Mario Palone, and Luca Lombardo. 2024. "Comparison of the Sliding Resistance of Metallic, Composite and In-House 3D-Printed Brackets: An In Vitro Study" Applied Sciences 14, no. 14: 6303. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146303

APA Style

Brucculeri, L., Pellitteri, F., Palone, M., & Lombardo, L. (2024). Comparison of the Sliding Resistance of Metallic, Composite and In-House 3D-Printed Brackets: An In Vitro Study. Applied Sciences, 14(14), 6303. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14146303

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop