Frictional resistances in stainless steel bracket-wire

combinations with effects of vertical deflections

Randall H. Ogata, DDS, MS, a Ram S. Nanda, DDS, MS, PhD, b
Manville G. Duncanson, Jr., DDS, PhD, c Pramod K. Sinha, BDS, DDS, MSfl and
G. Fr~ins Currier, DDS, MSD, MEd e
Oklahoma City, Okla.

This research evaluated the effects of different bracket-wire combinations and second-order
deflections on kinetic friction. Thirteen different brackets, six with 0.018 × 0.025 inch slots and
seven with 0.022 × 0.028-inch slots were evaluated with six different sizes and shapes of stainless
steel orthodontic wire, i,e., 0.016, 0.016 x 0.022, 0.017 x 0.025, 0.018, 0.018 x0.025 and
0.019 x 0.026 inch for four second order deflections of 0.00, 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mm. The wires
were ligated into the brackets with elastomeric modules. Bracket movement was implemented by
means of an Instron universal testing instrument (RMO, Denver, Colo.), and frictional forces were
measured by a tension load cell and recorded on an X-Y recorder (Hewlett-Packard, Anaheim,
Calif.). Second-order deflection was created by a specially designed and machined testing
apparatus that allowed two alternate pairs of the four total brackets to be offset in increments of
0.25 mm. The kinetic frictional force increased for every bracket-wire combination tested as the
second-order deflection increased. Friction also increased with an increase in wire size, whereas
rectangular wires produced greater friction than round wires. Bracket designs that limited the force
of ligation on the wire generated less friction at low second-order deflections (0.00 and 0.25 mm).
(Arn J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;109:535-42.)

S l i d i n g mechanics in orthodontic treat-
ment involve the relative movement of brackets over
an arch wire. This type of movement generates fric-
tional forces that must be overcome to elicit peri-
odontal response for tooth movement. Understand-
ing the frictional forces between the brackets and
the wires is essential for adequate tooth movement
and optimum biologic response. The most desirable
and ideal situation is one in which little or no friction
exists at the bracket-wire interface.
The effects of deflection on bracket-wire fric-
tion have been investigated by Peterson et al. 1
Increased angulation between bracket and wire
produced greater frictionJ These investigators var-
ied the bracket-wire angulation from 0 ° to 15° in a
single bracket system that tested both stainless
From the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center College of
Dentistry.
This report is based on a thesis submitted to the Graduate College,
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of master of science.
aGradnate student.
UProfessor and Chair, Department of Orthodontics.
~Professor and Chair, Department of Dental Materials.
eAssistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics.
eProfessor, Department of Orthodontics.
Copyright © 1995 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
0889-5406/96/$5.00 + 0 8/1/60324
steel and nitinol wires. Frank and Nikolai 2 found
that frictional resistance increased in a nonlinear
manner with increased bracket angulation. In ad-
dition, they found that as the force of ligation
increased the frictional resistance increased. Kapila
et al. a and Angolkar et al. 4 found that round wires
generated less friction than rectangular wires and
that friction increased with increased wire size.
Vaughan et al., 5 using the same testing apparatus
as Kapila et al. 3 and Angolkar et al. 4 demonstrated
that sintered stainless steel brackets generated 40%
less friction than cast stainless steel brackets. Sev-
eral orthodontic manufacturing companies have
recently introduced new bracket designs intended
to reduce the amount of friction generated at the
bracket-wire interface. These brackets need evalu-
ation, because the clinician needs to know the
range of frictional forces expected in various
bracket-wire combinations. Yet, there is a lack of
information in the literature on the effects of
second-order deflection on the kinetic frictional
force. The purpose of this investigation was to
evaluate the effects of different bracket-wire com-
binations and second-order deflections on kinetic
friction. The effect of the bracket design and the
manufacturing process on frictional resistance was
also studied.
535
536 Ogata et aL American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 1996

Fig. 1. Testing apparatus with four RS-S-018 brackets in place and 0.016 x O.025-inch stainless
steel orthodontic wire ligated in place at maximum (0.75 mm) second-order deflection.

Fig. 2. Sintered stainless steel brackets, from right to left: R-S-022, RS-S-022, and U-S-022.

MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study measured the kinetic frictional forces
developed between maxillary first premolar brackets with
0.018 x 0.025-inch and 0.022 x 0.028-inch slots tested
with resilient stainless steel wire (Tru-Chrome, Rocky
Mountain Orthodontics [RMO], Denver, Colo.) of vari-
ous cross-sectional sizes and shapes. All wires were
ligated into the brackets with elastomeric ligatures (J-176
ligature ringlets, RMO, Denver, Colo.). All tests were
conducted on a Instron universal testing instrument
(Model 1135, Instron Corp., Canton, Mass.) with the
data being plotted on a X-Y recorder (Model 7005B,
Hewlett-Packard, Anaheim, Calif.). Second-order deflec-
tions were created by using a specially designed testing
apparatus that allowed two pairs of brackets, four total,
to be offset from 0.00 mm to a maximum of 0.75 mm in
increments of 0.25 mm. (See Fig. 1.)
Data Collection
Data were gathered on 13 bracket types (six
0.018 × 0.025-inch and seven 0.022 × 0.028-inch slots)
and six wire shapes and sizes (0.016 inch, 0.016 × 0.022
inch, 0.017 x 0.025 inch, 0.018 inch, 0.018 × 0.025 inch
and 0.019 × 0.026 inch). Four different second-order
deflection settings (0.00, 0.25, 0.50, and 0.75 mm) were
examined for each bracket-wire combination. A sample
size of 10 wires was tested for each bracket-wire-deflec-
tion combination. Each wire was tested across the four
deflection settings, then a new wire and set of brackets
would be placed in the apparatus and the process re-
peated. The data were collected in two sets, one for
0.018 × 0.025-inch slot brackets and one for 0.022 ×
0.028-inch slot brackets. The brackets were initially
grouped by manufacturing process. Fig. 2 illustrates the
0.022 × 0.028-inch edgewise brackets produced with the
sintering process, i.e, RMO Mini-Taurus (R-S-022),
RMO Mini-Taurus Synergy (RS-S-022) (RMO, Denver,
Colo.) and Unitek Mini Twin (U-S-022) (3M Unitek,
Monrovia, Calif.). Fig. 3 shows the 0.022 × 0.028-inch
edgewise brackets produced with casting methods, i.e.,
American Friction Free (A-022) (American Orthodon-
tics, Sheboygan, Wis.), GAC Shoulder (G-022) (GAC,
Central Islip, N.Y.), and Ormco Mini Diamond (0-022)
(Ormco, Glendora, Calif.). Fig. 4 illustrates the TIP
Tip-Edge (TP-022) (TP Orthodontics, LaPorte, Ind.)
which is a cast bracket, currently available only in an
0.022-inch slot.
American Journalof Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Ogata et al. 537
Volume 109,No. 5

Fig. 3. Cast stainless steel brackets, from right to left: A-022, G-022, and 0-022.

The testing apparatus held four brackets so that the

bracket slots were oriented vertically. Two brackets were
attached to the fixed half, and two brackets were at-
tached to the sliding half of the test apparatus. A
straight, 5-inch segment of orthodontic wire was fixed
onto the brackets with elastomeric ligatures. The testing
apparatus allowed for the brackets to be off-set, deflect-
ing the wire in increments of 0.25 mm by the use of a
built-in millimetric slide-rule. Bracket movement was
implemented by the Instron at a rate of 0.02 inch per
minute for 2 minutes for each deflection evaluated. The
kinetic frictional forces generated as the brackets moved
along the wire were measured by the tension load cell
and plotted on the X-Y recorder. The area of the plot
where this curve leveled off was recorded as the friction
generated for that bracket-wire-deflection combination.
Deflection was increased in 0.25 mm increments up to a
maximum of 0.75 mm of second-order deflection for each
wire evaluated. A new set of brackets and wire was then Fig. 4. Cast stainless steel, combination bracket: TP-022. Slot
placed in the testing apparatus and the process repeated. design has two 20 ° wedges removed from each side to allow
slot to vary from 0.022 to 0.028 inch.
Statistical Analysis
The means and standard deviations of the frictional netic frictional forces increased significantly for
forces were calculated for each specific bracket-wire-
every bracket-wire combination tested, except the
deflection combination. The data were analyzed with
R-S-018 brackets with 0.016-inch wires. At low
one-factor repeated measure analyses of variance with
contrasts between repeated measures used to determine deflections, these combinations did not generate
whether specific deflections generated significantly dif- significant increases in kinetic frictional forces
ferent mean frictional forces. Increases in kinetic fric- when comparing 0.00 and 0.25 mm second-order
tional forces were all tested at the same level of signifi- deflections.
cance, i.e., p < 0.05. Cast stainless steel brackets. As the degree of
second-order deflection increased, the mean ki-
RESULTS netic frictional forces increased significantly for
0.018 x O.025-inch Slot Brackets every bracket-wire combination tested.
The mean kinetic frictional forces generated by
all 0.018 × 0.025-inch brackets are shown in Table 0.022 x O.028-inch Slot Brackets
I for three wire sizes and four different second- The mean kinetic frictional forces generated by
order deflections. For all but one of the bracket- all 0.022 x 0.028-inch brackets are illustrated in
wire combinations tested, there were statistically Table II for six wire sizes and four different sec-
significant increases between the mean kinetic fric- ond-order deflections. For the majority of the
tional forces as deflection increased. bracket-wire combinations tested, there were sig-
Sintered stainless steel brackets. As the degree of nificant increases between the mean kinetic fric-
second-order deflection increased, the mean ki- tional forces as deflection increased. In the three
538 Ogata et al. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 1996

Table I. Means and standard deviations (gins) for all 0.018 x O.025-inch slot brackets tested with three
different sizes and shapes of stainless steel orthodontic wire over different second-order deflections,
(n = 10")
0.018 x O.025-inch brackets

Means and standard deviations (gins)

Cast edgewise Sintered edgewise

A-018 G-O18 0-018 R-S-O18 RS-S-O18 U-S-O18

Deflection Mean { SD
0.00 nun 0.016 2.6 5.0 67.5 29.2 397.5 30.1 389.2** 36.6 1.2 3.2 530.0 58.9
16 x 22 142.5 44.6 271.0 20.5 707.0 25.3 636.5 84.9 0.0 0.0 689.5 101.7
17 x 25 188.5 33.7 622.5 184.5 928.0 49.5 610.5 75.9 68.7 58.1 746.5 49.0
0.25 mm 0.016 151.6 26.0 237.0 41.4 432.0 24.2 469.6** 57.1 55.3 19.0 592.0 57.6
16 x 22 559.5 29.8 754.0 31.9 925.0 49.9 965.0 55.4 39.5 20.6 835.0 103.8
17 x 25 766.5 45.0 1238.5 117.6 1237.0 102.1 762.5 83.5 215.0 108.7 1174.5 70.3
0.50 m m 0.016 361.4 40.0 480.5 50.2 648.5 35.7 678.2 74.6 222.8 36.7 753.0 69.3
16 x 22 1220.0 60.3 1583.5 73.1 1490.5 91.8 1578.5 115.3 637.0 68.9 1193.0 127.0
17 x 25 1530.5 38.4 2323.5 98.1 1821.0 142.7 1586.5 174.9 920.3 204.2 1881.0 130.4
0.75 mm 0.016 558.6 56.5 767.5 55.3 854.0 36.0 874.6 95.1 407.0 53.2 934.0 69.0
16 x 22 1976.5 74.0 2430.0 77.0 2001.0 107.5 2223.0 156.0 1497.0 186.6 1624.0 154.0
17 x 25 2451.0 293.3 4441.5 66.0 2386.0 137.0 2486.0 283.7 1744.5 328.6 2512.0 161.8

*RS-S-018 brackets were evaluated with a n = 20 for 0.016 and 0.017 x 0.025-inchwires.
**Indicates that there was no significant difference (p < 0.05) between the means of this specificbracket-wire combination across 0.00
and 0.25 mm of second-order deflection. All other interactions were significant at p < 0.05.

instances where there were no significant increases, DISCUSSION

all occurred between 0.00 and 0.25 mm of second-
order deflection.
Sintered stainless steel brackets. As the degree of
second-order deflection increased, kinetic frictional
forces increased significantly for every bracket-wire
combination tested, except the RS-S-022 brackets
with 0.016-inch and 0.018-inch wires between 0.00
and 0.25 m m of second-order deflection.
Cast stainless steel brackets. As the degree of
second-order deflection increased, kinetic frictional
forces increased significantly for every bracket-wire
combination tested, except the A-022 brackets with
0.016-inch wires between 0.00 and 0.25 m m of
second-order deflection.
Cast combination bracket. As second-order de-
flection increased, the mean kinetic frictional
forces increased significantly for every wire size
tested with TP-022 brackets.
The TP-022 brackets at low deflections gener-
ated forces between those of the cast brackets that
restricted ligation and the cast brackets ligated
conventionally. However, as deflections increased,
the frictional resistance generated by TP-022
brackets did not increase as rapidly as the edgewise
brackets.
Investigators have indicated that the proper
magnitudes of force during orthodontic treatment
will result in optimal tissue response and rapid
tooth movement. Storey and Smith 6 developed the
concept of optimal forces required for maximum
rate of tooth movement with a range of 180 to 240
gm being recommended for permanent canine re-
traction. Other relationships between orthodontic
forces and tooth movement have been proposed.
Quinn and Yoshikawa 7 concluded that the rate of
tooth movement increased as forces increased up
to a certain point, after which, increases in force
produced no appreciable increases in movement.
During mechanotherapy involving movement of the
bracket relative to the wire, friction at the bracket-
wire interface may prevent the attainment of opti-
mal force levels in the supporting tissues. Hence,
an understanding of forces required to overcome
friction is important so that the appropriate mag-
nitude of force can be used to produce optimal
biologic tooth movement.
The variables implicated as contributing to
bracket-wire frictional forces include bracket de-
sign, manufacturing process, slot size, wire alloy
type, wire size and shape, method of ligation and
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 109, No. 5 Ogata et al. 539

force of ligation, as well as salivary lubrica-

tion. 1'a5'811 As the majority of these variables are
under the control of the clinician, careful selection
of appropriate brackets, wires, and ligatures may be
used to control the relative rates of tooth move-
ment and to enhance or reduce anchorage.
Previous investigations on bracket-wire friction
have found that as wire size increases so does the
frictional force between bracket and wire. J'2'8'9 The
experimental design of some previous studies pro-
vided information for frictional forces generated at
fixed bracket wire angulations ranging from 0° to
15°. 1'2'8 The frictional forces determined by keeping
a fixed second-order bracket-wire deflection system
were not likely to be representative of the in vivo
dynamic changes in wire-bracket relationships. The
clinical situation often requires leveling of deflec-
tions in a series of bracketed teeth, not just a single
bracket. In the clinical management of the patient
requiring maximum anchorage protection, com-
plete leveling of an arch before using sliding me-
chanics, is necessary. Leveling reduces the forces
required for retraction of the teeth, because the
forces required for overcoming frictional resistance
will be decreased.
In this study, the mean kinetic frictional force Fig, 5. Facial and mesial views of RS-S-022 bracket demon-
strating bumps on slot walls and floor and how force of ligation
generally increased as wire size increased. In addi- would be held off of wire. Arrows point to these bumps.
tion, it was noted that rectangular wires generated
greater frictional forces than round wires. Further,
as deflection increased, the frictional forces gener- increased, a binding phase occurred in which the
ated did not increase in a linear manner, which is in friction increased at a much greater rate and was not
agreement with the findings of Frank and Nikolai. 2 necessarily linear. The point at which this binding
In recent years, bracket design and manufactur- occurred was different for each bracket-wire combi-
ing have become more sophisticated, incorporating nation but generally occurred at about 0.75 mm of
new design features and new processing methods in second-order deflection.
the production of brackets. The effect of changes in
Effect of Bracket Design on Frictional Forces
deflection and wire sizes on the mean kinetic fric-
tional force generated in the current study will be New bracket designs have been introduced that
discussed for several variables. restrict the amount of force placed on the wire by
the ligature. These designs generated lower mean
Effect of Deflection on Frictional Forces frictional forces at second-order deflections of 0.00
As second-order deflection increased, frictional and 0.25 mm than conventionally ligated brackets.
resistance increased for every bracket-wire combi- The three bracket types that could be ligated in
nation evaluated in the current study. This increase this manner were A-018/022, G-018/022, and RS-
was statistically significant for the majority of deflec- S-018/022. These new bracket designs generated
tion increases across each wire size and shape being lower frictional forces than brackets ligated in a
evaluated. However, as second-order deflection in- conventional manner. RS-S brackets have six wings,
creased between 0.00 to 0.25 mm, frictional forces with three on each side of the bracket slot. (See
did not significantly increase for every bracket-wire Fig. 5.) The lateral wings may be included in
combination. Frictional increases appeared in two ligation for correction of rotation of teeth. For
phases. With lower deflections, a smooth sliding testing in this experiment, only the center wings
phase appeared in which friction increased in ap- were ligated. This method of tying reduced binding
proximately a linear manner. However, as deflection created by the pressure of ligation in this bracket.
540 Ogata et al.
The effect of the design of the new brackets,
when ligated with the wire, limits the force on the
wire with the result that the normal component of
frictional force was markedly reduced. The results
of this study confirmed the findings of an earlier
investigation 3 that the conventional brackets de-
signs that permit full force of the ligation to bear
on the arch wire produced greater frictional resis-
tance. This was evident from the data concerning
small diameter wires at 0.00 mm or low second-
order deflections. In comparison, the newly de-
signed brackets revealed lower values of frictional
resistance. With new bracket designs, higher mea-
surements of friction largely reflected a greater
degree of second-order deflection.
The frictional forces recorded for the RS-S
brackets were lower for all sizes of wire-bracket
combinations at every level of second-order deflec-
tion, even when compared with the other new
design brackets of A-018/022 and G-018/022. This
difference may be attributed to the additional de-
sign features in these brackets. They have bumps
on the bracket walls and bracket floor, which re-
duce the surface area in contact with the wires, and
helped reduce the friction at the bracket-wire in-
terface.
The TP-022 brackets have a design in which 20 °
wedges were cut out of the bracket slot on diago-
nally opposite corners. These brackets were de-
signed largely for the practitioners of the Begg
technique, where teeth are first tipped and later
uprighted with auxiliary springs. With this bracket
design, when a tooth tips on retraction, the binding
of the wire at the edges of the bracket is greatly
minimized. The result of this design is that fric-
tional resistances are greatly reduced. However, the
results of this bracket cannot be compared on the
same plane with those of the other brackets in this
study, which were designed to seek bodily move-
ment as far as possible.
Effect of Manufacturing Process on
Frictional Forces
The three bracket types that were sintered, or
metal injection molded (MIM), in their manufac-
ture were R-S-018/022, RS-S-018/022, and U-S-
018/022. Comparisons of the frictional forces
produced by stainless steel orthodontic wires in
sintered and cast stainless steel brackets have indi-
cated that the wires in the sintered brackets pro-
duced 38% to 44% less frictional resistance than
cast brackets. 5 The differences in frictional forces
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 1996
between the two types of brackets may be attrib-
uted to the surface texture of the bracket. The
scanning electron micrographs of the sintered
brackets demonstrated a smoother bracket surface
afforded by the sintering process. 5 Sintering allows
each individual bracket to be premolded in a
smooth streamlined manner. The stainless steel
particles are then compressed in a contoured,
smooth, rounded shape as opposed to casting pro-
cedures where the milling or cutting processs may
leave sharp angular brackets that are more bulky
and rough. This study showed that as second-order
deflections increased the sintered brackets began
to generate lower frictional resistances as com-
pared with cast edgewise brackets. (See Tables I
and II.)
Effect of Wire Shape and Size on Frictional Forces
The findings of this study are in agreement with
earlier reports 35 that frictional forces increase not
only with larger diameter wires, but with rectangu-
lar wires. Larger wires increase the bracket-wire
interface that will affect the frictional forces.
In the bracket-wire-deflection combinations that
generated the lowest kinetic frictional force, the fol-
lowing factors contributed to reduce the magnitude
of frictional forces. First, lower second-order deflec-
tions (0.00 and 0.25 ram) contributed to lower fric-
tional forces. Second, smaller wire sizes (0.016 and
0.016 × 0.022 inch) generated lower frictional
forces. Third, brackets that restricted the force of
ligation (A-018/022, G-018/022, and RS-S-018/022)
generated less frictional resistance than convention-
ally ligated brackets.
In the bracket-wire-deflection combinations
that produced the greatest kinetic frictional forces,
most of the higher frictional forces were recorded
for larger degrees of second-order deflection (0.50
and 0.75 ram) and larger rectangular wires.
Clinical Significance
On the basis of the information gathered from
this study, several points of clinical significance can
be identified. To reduce friction during tooth move-
ment, complete leveling of the arch is an important
factor. New bracket designs and bracket types will
further help to reduce the amount of friction gen-
erated. Bracket designs that restrict the force of
ligation will allow the clinician to level the arch or
retract teeth without this constant force. Since
sintered brackets 5 reduced friction 40%, these
bracket types would be advantageous in leveling
American Journalof Orthodonticsand DentofacialOrthopedics Ogata et aL 541
Volume 109, No. 5

Table II. M e a n s and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s (gins) for all 0.022 x 0.028-inch slot b r a c k e t s t e s t e d with six
d i f f e r e n t sizes and s h a p e s o f stainless steel o r t h o d o n t i c wires o v e r d i f f e r e n t s e c o n d - o r d e r deflections,
(n = 10)

0.022 x O.028-inch brackets

Means and standard deviations (gins)

Cast edgewise Sintered edgewise Combination

A-022 G-022 0-022 R-S-022 RS-S-022 U-S-022 TP-022

Deflection Mean SD Mean SD Mean I SD Mean I SD Mean SD Mean I SD Mean I SD

0.00 mm 0.016 89.0* 8.1 95.0 13.9 481.0 4 4 . 2 463.5 53.5 0.0" 0.0 384.5 29.9 292.5 19.2
16 x 22 174.5 13.2 188.0 16.4 732.5 2 5 . 6 680.0 51.3 0.0 0.0 646.5 87.5 574.5 29.0
17 x 25 192.5 12.3 205.0 15.8 747.5 2 5 . 6 645.0 30.4 0.0 0.0 705.5 20.5 732.0 58.9
0.018 106.5 9.1 132.0 25.8 549.0 5 1 . 3 361.5 42.4 0.0" 0.0 436.5 16.2 362.0 37.3
18 x 25 246.0 28.2 233.0 13.6 821.0 3 0 . 0 700.0 76.6 0.0 0.0 803.0 49.1 612.5 24,5
19 × 26 257.5 37.2 246.0 16.0 1060.0 8 0 . 3 848.5 40.6 0.0 0.0 908.5 95.0 737.5 35.1
0.25 mm 0.016 91.0" 7.7 117.5 17.4 529.0 4 6 . 9 487.0 58.7 0.0" 0.0 430.0 31.6 326.5 26.5
16 x 22 195.0 13.1 282.5 10.1 842.0 3 5 , 3 734.0 48.9 6.5 4.1 714.5 57.6 607.0 18.0
17 x 25 213.0 7.5 441.5 27.6 868.0 3 1 . 7 733.0 40.6 11.0 5.7 808.0 39.2 761.5 49.4
0.018 117.5 9.2 177.5 28.5 605.0 4 9 . 6 408.5 40.6 1.5" 3.4 498.5 17.8 442.0 69,8
18 x 25 266.5 28.2 515.0 10.0 1131.0 9 4 . 4 852.0 122.7 12.0 5.9 895.0 69.5 814.5 24.9
19 x 26 356.0 58.6 592.5 25.0 1830.0 36.1 1044.0 55.6 30.5 18.2 993.5 97.3 799.5 29.9
0.50 mm 0.016 113.5 6.7 247.5 14.2 665.0 5 2 . 3 550.0 64.8 29.0 12.4 384.5 27.8 383.0 25.4
16 x 22 291.0 23.5 653.0 22.0 1355.0 4 5 . 3 905.0 44.0 151.5 24.8 1061.5 99.4 657.0 23.6
17 x 25 409.0 11.0 1017.5 55.8 1468.0 45.0 1032.0 68.2 254.5 28.9 1063.0 75.2 806.5 21.2
0.018 185.0 9.1 403.0 23.9 830.5 6 4 . 4 596.5 23.7 97.5 8.2 620.5 33.0 480.5 54.7
13 x 25 589:0 56.4 1221.5 32.1 1616.0 121.3 1621.5 272.1 234.0 21.1 1136.5 80.4 1009.5 73.4
19 x 26 997.0 183.8 1380.5 73.2 2499.5 54.4 1889.0 136.0 373.0 62.7 1432.0 104.2 1055.0 59.1
0.75 mm 0 . 0 1 6 236.5 14.2 398.5 18.3 824.5 5 8 . 0 713.5 79.1 110.5 23.7 734.0 36.5 450.0 34.8
16 x 22 786.0 86.0 1190.0 48.0 1934.0 74.1 1336.0 87.5 459.0 41.6 1280.0 78.3 857.5 29.8
17 x 25 1067.5 54.0 1929.0 60.7 1990.5 89.2 1609.0 98.3 755.5 32.3 1546.0 160.2 962.0 43.1
0.018 475.0 16.3 710.5 29.4 1081.5 8 7 . 2 873.0 58.9 313.5 53.8 787.0 35.3 527.0 45.8
13 x 25 1383.0 50.5 2224.5 75.9 2741.0 182.6 2532.4 468.9 866.0 51.2 1815.5 190.9 1276.0 77.3
19 x 26 1600.5 117.5 3051.5 64.9 3468.5 61.7 2680.0 224.0 1217.5 146.9 2247.0 171.3 1514.0 138.3

*Indicates tha~ there was no significant difference (p < 0.05) between the means of this specific bracket-wire combinations across 0.00
and 0.25 mm of second-order deflections. All other interactions were significant at p < 0.05.

and r e t r a c t i o n of teeth. T h e s e l e c t i o n of various

CONCLUSIONS
w i r e s h a p e s and sizes will also allow t h e clinician to
r e g u l a t e t h e a m o u n t o f friction. T h e a d v a n c e s in
b o t h b r a c k e t d e s i g n and m a n u f a c t u r i n g o f f e r
g r e a t e r flexibility in r e d u c i n g frictional r e s i s t a n c e
d u r i n g sliding m e c h a n i c s .
A l i m i t a t i o n to this study w o u l d b e t h e inter-
p r e t a t i o n o f this in vitro study to any in vivo
situation. W i t h any testing situation, it is i m p o s s i b l e
to r e p r o d u c e t h e exact s i t u a t i o n o n e m i g h t e n c o u n -
t e r in t h e m o u t h . T h e r e f o r e the r e l a t i v e frictional
f o r c e s o b t a i n e d in this study are m o r e m e a n i n g f u l
w h e n c o m p a r e d w i t h e a c h other, as o p p o s e d to an
actual f o r c e v a l u e t h a t m i g h t b e m e a s u r e d clinically
o n a p a t i e n t . In addition, this study only e v a l u a t e d
stainless steel b r a c k e t s a n d wires, f u t u r e r e s e a r c h
m a y i n c l u d e d i f f e r e n t b r a c k e t o r wire m a t e r i a l s .
1. K i n e t i c frictional force i n c r e a s e d as s e c o n d -
o r d e r deflections i n c r e a s e d for all b r a c k e t -
wire c o m b i n a t i o n s tested.
2. F r i c t i o n a l forces t e n d e d to b e g r e a t e r for
r e c t a n g u l a r wires as c o m p a r e d with r o u n d
wires.
3. F r i c t i o n a l forces t e n d e d to i n c r e a s e with an
i n c r e a s e in w i r e size.
4. T h e R S - S b r a c k e t s g e n e r a t e d consistently
low frictional forces that h a v e b e e n attrib-
u t e d to t h e u n i q u e design o f t h e s e brackets.
5. B r a c k e t designs t h a t r e s t r i c t e d t h e f o r c e o f
ligation f r o m b e i n g p l a c e d on the arch wire,
such as A-018/022, G-018/022, and RS-S-
018/022 b r a c k e t s g e n e r a t e d l o w e r kinetic
542 Ogata et al. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 1996

frictional forces as compared with bracket
designs that did not restrict the ligation force
at second-order deflections of 0.00 and
0.25 mm.
REFERENCES
1. Peterson L, Spencer R, Andreasen GF. Comparison of
frictional resistance of nitinol and stainless steel wires in
edgewise brackets. Quint Inter Digest 1982;13:563-71.
2. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional
resistance between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. AM J
ORTHOD 1980;78:593-609.
3. Kapila S, Angolkar PV, Duncanson Jr MG, Nanda RS.
Evaluation of friction between edgewise stainless steel
brackets and orthodontic wires for four alloys. AM J
ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1990;98:117-26.
4. Angolkar PV, Kapila S, Duncanson Jr MG, Nanda RS.
Evaluation of friction between ceramic brackets and ortho-
dontic wires of four alloys. AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC
ORTHOP 1990;98:499-506.
5. Vaughan JL, Duncanson Jr MG, Nanda RS, Currier GF.
Relative kinetic frictional forces between sintered stain-
less steel brackets and orthodontic wire. AM J ORTHOD
DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1995;107:20-7.
6. Storey F, Smith R. Force in orthodontics and its relation to
tooth movement. Aust Dent J 1952;56:11-8.
7. Quinu RB, Yoshikawa DK. A reassessment of force magni-
tude in orthodontics. AM J ORTHOD 1985;88:252-60.
8. Andreasen GF, Quevedo FR. Evaluation of frictional forces
in the 0.022" × 0.028" edgewise bracket in vitro. J Biomech
1970;3:151-60.
9. Riley JL, Garrett SG, Moon PC. Frictional forces of ligated
plastic and metal edgewise brackets. J Dent Res 1979;58:A21.
10. Stanndard JG, Gau JM, Hanna M. Comparative friction of
orthodontic wires under dry and-wet conditions. AM J
ORTHOD 1986;89:485-91.
11. Baker KL, Nieberg LG, Weimer AD, Hanna M. Frictional
changes in force values caused by saliva substitution. AM J
ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1987;91:316-30.
Reprint requests to:
Dr. Ram Nanda
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
College of Dentistry
P.O. Box 36901
Oklahoma City, OK 73190

AVAILABILITY OF JOURNAL BACK ISSUES

As a service to our subscribers, copies of back issues of the American Journal of
Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics for the preceding 5 years are maintained
and are available for purchase from the publisher, Mosby-Year Book, Inc., at a cost
of $10.00 per issue. The following quantity discounts are available: 25% off on
quantities of 12 to 23, and one third off on quantities of 24 or more. Please write
to Mosby-Year Book, Inc., Subscription Services, 11830 Westline Industrial Dr., St.
Louis, MO 63146-3318, or call (800)453-4351 or (314)453-4351 for information on
availability of particular issues. If unavailable from the publisher, photocopies of
complete issues are available from University Microfilms International, 300 N. Zeeb
Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48106 (313)761-4700.