English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Background and objectives  Friction between the bracket and archwire during sliding mechanics is of great concern in orthodontics, as it reduces the effectiveness of the orthodontic appliance and slows down tooth movement. The aim of this study was to evaluate frictional resistance of stainless steel (SS), titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA), and Connecticut new arch (CNA) wires against SS and ceramic brackets. The surface textures of the brackets and wires were also evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after testing.  Method  A total of 180 premolar brackets of SS (ORMCO Corp., Orange, CA) and 180 ceramic (3M Unitek, Maplewood, MN) with a 0.022-inch slot and 180 SS, TMA, and CNA wires of 0.017 x 0.025 inches and 0.019 x 0.025 inches were tested. The SS brackets and ceramic brackets were bonded onto the SS bar with cyanoacrylate adhesive with the help of a jig. The wire assembly was vertically mounted and clamped to the jaws of the universal testing machine with 10 N load cell, and friction was measured along with other readings. The surface roughness of brackets and wires were examined using SEM in 200 X magnification before and after testing.  Results  TMA wire showed the greatest frictional force compared to SS and CNA wire. The frictional force was greater in the 0.019 x 0.025-inch wire compared to the 0.017 x 0.025-inch wires. The highest frictional force was noted in the SS bracket and 0.019 x 0.02-inch TMA wire combination. A statistically significant difference was not seen between the SS bracket and 0.019 x 0.025-inch SS wire and the 0.019 x 0.025-inch CNA wire combinations.  SEM showed that the TMA archwire had the roughest surface area compared to SS and CNA wires, and the ceramic bracket had more surface roughness than the SS bracket.  Conclusion  CNA wire demonstrated frictional resistance similar to the SS wire. CNA wire can be used instead of TMA wire because of its better range of action, high spring back, and less frictional resistance for space closure in sliding mechanics.

curēus

In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Frictional Resistance of Connecticut New Arch Wires, Stainless Steel and Titanium Molybdenum Alloy Archwires Against Different Brackets