These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Force loss in archwire-guided tooth movement of conventional and self-ligating brackets.
    Author: Montasser MA, El-Bialy T, Keilig L, Reimann S, Jäger A, Bourauel C.
    Journal: Eur J Orthod; 2014 Feb; 36(1):31-8. PubMed ID: 23382468.
    Abstract:
    This study aimed to investigate the differences in the force loss during simulated archwire-guided canine retraction between various conventional and self-ligating brackets. Three types of orthodontic brackets have been investigated experimentally using a biomechanical set-up: 1. conventional ligating brackets (Victory Series and Mini-Taurus), 2. self-ligating brackets (SmartClip: passive self-ligating bracket, and Time3 and SPEED: active self-ligating brackets), and 3. a conventional low-friction bracket (Synergy). All brackets had a nominal 0.022″ slot size. The brackets were combined with three rectangular 0.019×0.025″ archwires: 1. Remanium (stainless steel), 2. Nitinol SE (nickel-titanium alloy, NiTi), and 3. Beta III Titanium (titanium-molybdenum alloy). Stainless steel ligatures were used with the conventional brackets. Archwire-guided tooth movement was simulated over a retraction path of up to 4mm using a superelastic NiTi coil spring (force: 1 N). Force loss was lowest for the Victory Series and SmartClip brackets in combination with the steel guiding archwire (35 and 37.6 per cent, respectively) and highest for the SPEED and Mini-Taurus brackets in combination with the titanium wire (73.7 and 64.4 per cent, respectively). Force loss gradually increased by 10 per cent for each bracket type in combination with the different wires in the following sequence: stainless steel, Nitinol, and beta-titanium. Self-ligating brackets did not show improved performance compared with conventional brackets. There was no consistent pattern of force loss when comparing conventional and self-ligating brackets or passive and active self-ligating brackets.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]