• Users Online: 336
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 176-181

Comparison of frictional resistance of different esthetic archwires in different esthetic brackets in dry and wet fields: An in vitro study


Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, Puducherry, India

Correspondence Address:
Jinsa Nakasseril Joseph
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth, Puducherry - 605 007
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jdrr.jdrr_50_21

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: The patient's desire toward achieving an esthetically pleasing face has not only increased the demand for orthodontic therapy but also necessitates the need for an esthetic appearance during the treatment period which led to the introduction of tooth-colored ceramic brackets and archwires. Materials and Methods: The experimental research was done using esthetic brackets (polycrystalline ceramic brackets with and without metal slot and monocrystalline brackets) and stainless steel archwires (uncoated, Teflon coated, epoxy coated, and rhodium coated) in both dry and wet fields. Two typhodont models were selected onto which the above-mentioned brackets were bonded and frictional resistance was evaluated using Instron machine for each of the archwire-bracket combinations in dry and wet fields. Results: The uncoated stainless steel (SS) wires showed less friction when compared to esthetic-coated SS wires. The frictional resistance was least for wet field when compared with dry field for all the groups and subgroups. It was also found that frictional resistance was minimum for Teflon-coated wires in polycrystalline ceramic bracket with metal slot (wet field) and maximum for rhodium-coated wires in monocrystalline brackets (dry field). Conclusion: Polytetrafluorethylene/Teflon-coated archwire and ceramic bracket with metal slot could be preferred as the esthetic archwire and bracket material of choice, respectively, due to their low frictional properties.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed424    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded61    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal