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, Mirmohammad Sadeghi H, 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 , Hoori Mirmohammad Sadeghi3 , Alireza Akbarzadeh Baghban4
, Shiva Tavakol Davani *2 , Azita Tehranchi3 , Parisa Amjadi3 , Hoori Mirmohammad Sadeghi3 , 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: (291 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
References
1. Liu F, Wang Y, Luopei D, Qu X, Liu L. Comparison of fixed braces and clear braces for malocclusion treatment. BMC Oral Health. 2024 Aug 14;24(1):941. [DOI:10.1186/s12903-024-04469-2] [PMID] []
2. Mundhada VV, Jadhav VV, Reche A. A Review on Orthodontic Brackets and Their Application in Clinical Orthodontics. Cureus. 2023 Oct 7;15(10):e46615. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.46615]
3. Kamel HA, Taha SS. Frictional Resistance in Orthodontics-A Review. (Humanities, social and applied sciences) Misan Journal of Academic Studies. 2023 Dec 30;22(48):253-63. [DOI:10.54633/2333-022-048-019]
4. V S B, Kaul A, Tiwari A, Aliya S, Yadav A, Bera T, et al. Assessment of Various Archwire Materials and Their Impact on Orthodontic Treatment Outcomes. Cureus. 2024 Sep 18;16(9):e69667. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.69667]
5. Chatuan M, Elguennouni B, Halimi A, Zaoui F. Canine retraction with nickel-titanium coil springs versus elastomeric chains: A systematic review. Journal of Dental Materials & Techniques. 2024 Sep 1;13(3)..
6. Umićević-Davidović M, Arapović-Savić M, Arbutina A, Adamović T, Kuzmanović-Radman I. Analysis of sliding mechanics force degradation during postextraction space closure. Stomatoloski glasnik Srbije. 2022;69(3):115-24. [DOI:10.2298/SGS2203115U]
7. Ribeiro GL, Jacob HB. Understanding the basis of space closure in Orthodontics for a more efficient orthodontic treatment. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016 Mar-Apr;21(2):115-25. [DOI:10.1590/2177-6709.21.2.115-125.sar] [PMID] []
8. Mote N, Dhanjani V, Das S, Pallan K. Governing the Friction in Fixed Orthodontic Appliance. Iranian Journal of Orthodontics. 2019 Sep 1;14(2):1-6. [DOI:10.5812/ijo.103731]
9. Prasetyadi T, Irawan B, Purwanegara MK, Suharno B, Supriadi S. Orthodontic Bracket Friction Affected by Design Selection Material and Manufacturing Process. Applied Mechanics and Materials. 2022 Nov 21;910:39-44. [DOI:10.4028/p-kfmno4]
10. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Frictional resistances of metal-lined ceramic brackets versus conventional stainless steel brackets and development of 3-D friction maps. Angle Orthod. 2001 Oct;71(5):364-74.
11. Li Y, Zhan Q, Bao M, Yi J, Li Y. Biomechanical and biological responses of periodontium in orthodontic tooth movement: up-date in a new decade. Int J Oral Sci. 2021 Jun 28;13(1):20. [DOI:10.1038/s41368-021-00125-5] [PMID] []
12. Viglianisi G, Polizzi A, Lombardi T, Amato M, Grippaudo C, Isola G. Biomechanical and Biological Multidisciplinary Strategies in the Orthodontic Treatment of Patients with Periodontal Diseases: A Review of the Literature. Bioengineering (Basel). 2025 Jan 9;12(1):49. [DOI:10.3390/bioengineering12010049] [PMID] []
13. Dragomirescu AO, Bencze MA, Vasilache A, Teodorescu E, Albu CC, Popoviciu NO, et al. Reducing Friction in Orthodontic Brackets: A Matter of Material or Type of Ligation Selection? In-Vitro Comparative Study. Materials (Basel). 2022 Apr 3;15(7):2640. [DOI:10.3390/ma15072640] [PMID] []
14. Lo Giudice A, Portelli M, Militi A, Spinuzza P, Bellocchio AM, Nucera R, et al. Is static friction affected by aging and amount of elastomeric ligatures in orthodontic sliding mechanics? An in-vitro investigation. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2018 Mar-Apr;32(2 Suppl. 2):67-73.
15. Obaid DH, Al-Dabagh DJ, Jasim ES. Assessment of friction among nickel free orthodontic brackets and archwires combinations in wet condition (an in-vitro comparative study). J Res Med Dent Sci. 2020 Nov;8(7):387-93.
16. Shah P, Sharma P, Naik H, Patel K, Panchal C. A comparative evaluation of frictional resistance and surface roughness of silver coated and uncoated stainless-steel bracket wire assembly- An in-vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2023 May 1;15(5):e411-e419. [DOI:10.4317/jced.60357] [PMID] []
17. Almashhdani MI, AlSamak S, Hamood MA. Comparison of friction generated on conventional and coated stainless steel archwires during sliding mechanics using monocrystalline ceramic bracket and stainless steel bracket. AMJ. 2023;63(02):7861-69.
18. Monteiro MR, Silva LE, Elias CN, Vilella Ode V. Frictional resistance of self-ligating versus conventional brackets in different bracket-archwire-angle combinations. J Appl Oral Sci. 2014 Jun;22(3):228-34. [DOI:10.1590/1678-775720130665] [PMID] []
19. Siddiqui S, Wani MA, Koul R, Yadav V, Rozy F, Battoo MR. Evaluation of the frictional resistance between different bracket types, archwires and ligation materials: An in-vitro study. International Dental Journal of Students' Research. 2023 Jan 1;11(1). [DOI:10.18231/j.idjsr.2023.004]
20. Ebrahimi P, Nastarin P, Hadilou M, Karimzadeh B, Kachoei M. Effect of Elastomeric Module Degradation and Ligation Methods on Kinetic Friction between NiTi or Stainless Steel Wires and Stainless Steel Brackets. Front Dent. 2024 Mar 14;21:10. [DOI:10.18502/fid.v21i10.15222] [PMID] []
21. Pugalendhi R, Varma NKS, Ghosh P, Ajith VV, Nair DJ. Effect of Chlorhexidine and Povidone-iodine Mouth Rinses on Corrosion Resistance and Surface Characteristics of Stainless Steel Orthodontic Brackets - An in vitro and in vivo Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2024 Jul-Sep;15(3):149-57. [DOI:10.4103/ccd.ccd_433_23] [PMID] []
22. Divya P, Banswada SR, Kukunuru SR, Kavya KB, Rathod RR, Polavarapu KC. To Compare the Accuracy of 0.022 Inch Slot of Stainless Steel and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets Marketed by Different Manufacturers. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021 Nov;13(Suppl 2):S1037-S1041. [DOI:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_295_21] [PMID] []
23. Kolhe SA, Patani S, Daokar S, Kumar T, Pawar RA, Dhope SV. Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and surface roughness of lingual bracket slot -An in vitro study. IJODR. 2024;10(3):208-14. [DOI:10.18231/j.ijodr.2024.037]
24. Bernes Martinez L, Garcovich D, Alvarado Lorenzo A, Zhou Wu A, Aiuto R, Adobes Martin M. Tip and Torque Accuracy According to the ISO 27020: 2019 Norm in Currently Available Pre-Adjusted Orthodontic Brackets. Applied Sciences. 2021 Dec 8;11(24):11657. [DOI:10.3390/app112411657]
25. Bernés Martínez L, Garcovich D, España Pamplona P, Adobes Martín MA, Alvarado Lorenzo A. Compliance with the ISO 27020: 2019 norm of a sample of currently available preadjusted Orthodontic bracket systems. Are the actual dimensions as expected?. Head & Face Medicine. 2021 Dec;17:1-0. [DOI:10.1186/s13005-021-00276-0] [PMID] []
26. Ireland AJ, Sherriff M, McDonald F. Effect of bracket and wire composition on frictional forces. The European Journal of Orthodontics. 1991 Aug 1;13(4):322-8. [DOI:10.1093/ejo/13.4.322] [PMID]
27. Baker KL, Nieberg LG, Weimer AD, Hanna M. Frictional changes in force values caused by saliva substitution. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987 Apr;91(4):316-20. [DOI:10.1016/0889-5406(87)90173-9] [PMID]
28. Arash V, Rabiee M, Rakhshan V, Khorasani S, Sobouti F. In vitro evaluation of frictional forces of two ceramic orthodontic brackets versus a stainless steel bracket in combination with two types of archwires. J Orthod Sci. 2015 Apr-Jun;4(2):42-6. [DOI:10.4103/2278-0203.156028] [PMID] []
29. Lucas J. Comparison of Resistance to Sliding of Three Different Bracket Systems After Various Sliding Distances (Master's thesis, Nova Southeastern University).
30. Vartolomei AC, Serbanoiu DC, Ghiga DV, Moldovan M, Cuc S, Pollmann MCF, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Two Bracket Systems' Kinetic Friction: Conventional and Self-Ligating. Materials (Basel). 2022 Jun 17;15(12):4304. [DOI:10.3390/ma15124304] [PMID] []
31. Selvaraj M, Mohaideen K, Sennimalai K, Gothankar GS, Arora G. Effect of oral environment on contemporary orthodontic materials and its clinical implications. J Orthod Sci. 2023 Mar 18;12:1. [DOI:10.4103/jos.jos_73_22] [PMID] []
32. Cury SE, Aliaga-Del Castillo A, Pinzan A, Sakoda KL, Bellini-Pereira SA, Janson G. Orthodontic brackets friction changes after clinical use: A systematic review. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019 May 1;11(5):e482-e490. [DOI:10.4317/jced.55676] [PMID] []
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
