Volume 10, Issue 3 (9-2025)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025, 10(3): 176-183 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1401.067
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Foroozandehfar N, Tavakol Davani S, Tehranchi A, Amjadi P, Baghban A A. Comparative Evaluation of Frictional Forces Between a Domestically Produced Orthodontic Bracket and a Well-Established Equivalent During Sliding Mechanics: An In Vitro Study. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025; 10 (3) :176-183
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-892-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-892-en.html
Nazanin Foroozandehfar1 
, Shiva Tavakol Davani *2 , Azita Tehranchi3 , Parisa Amjadi3 , Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban4
, Shiva Tavakol Davani *2 , Azita Tehranchi3 , Parisa Amjadi3 , Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban4
1- Research Institute for Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,S.tavakoldavani@gmail.com
3- Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
4- Department of Basic Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
2- Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. ,
3- Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
4- Department of Basic Sciences, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract: (13 Views)
Background and Aim: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the static and kinetic frictional forces of domestically produced Emerald™ brackets during sliding mechanics and compare them with Mini Master™ brackets, a well-recognized alternative, to determine their viability as a cost-effective and reliable option.
Materials and Methods: For sample selection, 100 brackets from each manufacturer (200 in total) were screened under a light microscope, and then 34 Emerald™ and 34 Mini Master™ brackets were randomly selected. Additionally, 68 rectangular stainless-steel archwires (0.019” ×0.025”) were selected after eligibility assessment. Brackets were mounted on plastic blocks using cyanoacrylate adhesive, and archwires were secured in the bracket slots with elastic ligatures. Friction was measured using a universal testing machine (500-N load cell), with 5 mm/min speed over a 5 mm distance. The Shapiro-Wilk test assessed normality, and the Mann-Whitney U test compared friction between the groups (α = 0.05).
Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the mean kinetic frictional forces of Emerald™ (1.80±0.57 N) and Mini Master™ brackets (1.90±0.29 N) (P=0.342). However, Emerald™ brackets demonstrated significantly lower mean static frictional forces (2.14±0.76 N) compared to Mini Master™ group (2.44±0.41 N) (P=0.045). Additionally, Emerald™ brackets showed greater variability in friction values, with a wider range between minimum and maximum forces than the Mini Master™ group.
Conclusion: The results suggest that Emerald™ brackets may provide a low-friction advantage, but their variable friction values require further research to evaluate clinical implications.
Materials and Methods: For sample selection, 100 brackets from each manufacturer (200 in total) were screened under a light microscope, and then 34 Emerald™ and 34 Mini Master™ brackets were randomly selected. Additionally, 68 rectangular stainless-steel archwires (0.019” ×0.025”) were selected after eligibility assessment. Brackets were mounted on plastic blocks using cyanoacrylate adhesive, and archwires were secured in the bracket slots with elastic ligatures. Friction was measured using a universal testing machine (500-N load cell), with 5 mm/min speed over a 5 mm distance. The Shapiro-Wilk test assessed normality, and the Mann-Whitney U test compared friction between the groups (α = 0.05).
Results: No statistically significant difference was found between the mean kinetic frictional forces of Emerald™ (1.80±0.57 N) and Mini Master™ brackets (1.90±0.29 N) (P=0.342). However, Emerald™ brackets demonstrated significantly lower mean static frictional forces (2.14±0.76 N) compared to Mini Master™ group (2.44±0.41 N) (P=0.045). Additionally, Emerald™ brackets showed greater variability in friction values, with a wider range between minimum and maximum forces than the Mini Master™ group.
Conclusion: The results suggest that Emerald™ brackets may provide a low-friction advantage, but their variable friction values require further research to evaluate clinical implications.
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
orthodontic
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
