Nanocomposites and nanoionomers for orthodontic bracket bonding

2019 ◽  
pp. 171-180
Author(s):  
Prabhat Kumar Chaudhari ◽  
Lata Goyal ◽  
Shailendra Singh Rana ◽  
Kunaal Dhingra ◽  
Nandita Kshetrimayum
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Bracket

Stress Variation in the Orthodontic Tipping Phenomenon Analysis through the finite element method

2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (8) ◽  
pp. 1992-1995
Author(s):  
Dan Dragos Sita ◽  
Ligia Brezeanu ◽  
Cristina Bica ◽  
Dana Manuc ◽  
Edwin Sever Bechir ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Finite Element Method ◽  
Finite Element ◽  
Alveolar Bone ◽  
Complex Structure ◽  
External Action ◽  
The Finite Element Method ◽  
Stress Variation ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Method Analysis ◽  
Element Method

The purpose of the study is to assess through a FEM (Finite Element Method analysis), the behavior of a complex structure (enamel-tooth-alveolar bone-periodontal ligament-pulp), subjected to an external load through an orthodontic bracket-with forces of various intensities and to determine its influence on the entire structure.It is necessary to analyze the way all elements of the structure take over the external action given by the action of an orthodontic appliance through the brackets and the influence on the inner component -the pulp-inside of which there are the nerve endings.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Frictional forces between different Archwire-bracket Combinations

2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinit Singh ◽  
Swati Acharya ◽  
Satyabrata Patnaik ◽  
Smruti Bhusan Nanda
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Tooth Movement ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Frictional Resistance ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Beta Titanium ◽  
Frictional Forces

Introduction: During sliding mechanics, frictional resistance is an important counterforce to orthodontic tooth movement; whichmust be controlled to allow application of light continuous forces.Objective: To investigate static and kinetic frictional resistance between three orthodontic brackets: ceramic, self-ligating, andstainless steel, and three 0.019×0.025” archwires: stainless steel, nickel-titanium, titanium-molybdenum.Materials & Method: The in vitro study compared the effects of stainless steel, nickel-titanium, and beta-titanium archwires onfrictional forces of three orthodontic bracket systems: ceramic, self-ligating, and stainless steel brackets. All brackets had 0.022”slots, and the wires were 0.019×0.025”. Friction was evaluated in a simulated half-arch fixed appliance on a testing machine. Thestatic and kinetic friction data were analyzed with 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Duncan multiple rangetest.Result: Self-ligating (Damon) brackets generated significantly lower static and kinetic frictional forces than stainless steel (Gemini)and ceramic brackets (Clarity). Among the archwire materials, Beta-titanium showed the maximum amount of frictional forceand stainless steel archwires had the lowest frictional force.Conclusion: The static and kinetic frictional force for stainless steel bracket was lowest in every combination of wire.

scholarly journals Accuracy of intraoral scan images in full arch with orthodontic brackets: a retrospective in vivo study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Young-Kyun Kim ◽  
So-Hyun Kim ◽  
Tae-Hyun Choi ◽  
Edwin H. Yen ◽  
Bingshuang Zou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Digital Impression ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Average Surface ◽  
Mandibular Arch ◽  
Surface Errors ◽  
Digital Impressions ◽  
Surface Deviations ◽  
Orthodontic Patients

Abstract Objectives The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the accuracy of intraoral scan (IOS) images in the maxillary and mandibular arches with orthodontic brackets. Material and methods From digital impressions of 140 patients who underwent orthodontic treatment, consecutive IOS images were selected based on standardized inclusion criteria: Two pre-orthodontic IOS images (IOS1 and IOS2) of permanent dentition with fully erupted second molars and IOS images obtained immediately after orthodontic bracket bonding (IOSb). Superimpositions were performed to evaluate the reproducibility of repeated IOS images. Accuracy of IOSb images was analyzed by comparing the average surface errors between IOS1c and IOS2c images, which were IOS images cut based on the same region of the interest as between IOS1 and IOSb images. Results A total of 84 IOS images was analyzed. The average surface errors between IOS1 and IOS2 images were 57 ± 8 μm and 59 ± 14 μm in the maxillary and mandibular arch, respectively, and their reliability was almost perfect. The average errors between IOSb and IOS1c images exhibited an increase, which measured 97 ± 28 μm in the maxillary arch and 95 ± 29 μm in the mandibular arch. These surface deviations between IOSb and IOS1c images were significantly larger in each region as well as entire dentition (P < 0.001) compared to those between IOS1c and IOS2c images. Conclusions The average surface errors of the scans with brackets showed increased values compared with those without brackets. This suggests that orthodontic brackets could affect the trueness of intraoral scan images. Clinical relevance It is necessary for clinicians to consider the effect of brackets on digital impression when using IOS images in orthodontic patients.

scholarly journals Prototype of Augmented Reality Technology for Orthodontic Bracket Positioning: An In Vivo Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 2315
Author(s):  
Yu-Cheng Lo ◽  
Guan-An Chen ◽  
Yin Chun Liu ◽  
Yuan-Hou Chen ◽  
Jui-Ting Hsu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Augmented Reality ◽  
Navigation System ◽  
Computer Aided Design ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Bracket Position ◽  
Aided Design ◽  
Clinical Error ◽  
And Control

To improve the accuracy of bracket placement in vivo, a protocol and device were introduced, which consisted of operative procedures for accurate control, a computer-aided design, and an augmented reality–assisted bracket navigation system. The present study evaluated the accuracy of this protocol. Methods: Thirty-one incisor teeth were tested from four participators. The teeth were bonded by novice and expert orthodontists. Compared with the control group by Boone gauge and the experiment group by augmented reality-assisted bracket navigation system, our study used for brackets measurement. To evaluate the accuracy, deviations of positions for bracket placement were measured. Results: The augmented reality-assisted bracket navigation system and control group were used in the same 31 cases. The priority of bonding brackets between control group or experiment group was decided by tossing coins, and then the teeth were debonded and the other technique was used. The medium vertical (incisogingival) position deviation in the control and AR groups by the novice orthodontist was 0.90 ± 0.06 mm and 0.51 ± 0.24 mm, respectively (p < 0.05), and by the expert orthodontist was 0.40 ± 0.29 mm and 0.29 ± 0.08 mm, respectively (p < 0.05). No significant changes in the horizontal position deviation were noted regardless of the orthodontist experience or use of the augmented reality–assisted bracket navigation system. Conclusion: The augmented reality–assisted bracket navigation system increased the accuracy rate by the expert orthodontist in the incisogingival direction and helped the novice orthodontist guide the bracket position within an acceptable clinical error of approximately 0.5 mm.

The Influence of Bracket Material, Ligation Force and Wear on Frictional Resistance of Orthodontic Brackets

1993 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Keith ◽  
S. P. Jones ◽  
E. H. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Abrasive Wear ◽  
Single Crystal ◽  
Wear Debris ◽  
Aluminium Oxide ◽  
Frictional Resistance ◽  
Material Force ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

Planar static frictional phenomena were investigated for two types of ceramic and one type of stainless steel orthodontic bracket against rectangular stainless steel archwire. The brackets studied were ‘Starfire’ (single crystal aluminium oxide), ‘Allure III’ (polycrystalline aluminium oxide), and ‘Dentaurum’ (stainless steel). The investigative parameters were: bracket material, force of ligation and whether the brackets were new or ‘worn’. Without exception, both types of ceramic bracket produced greater frictional resistance than the stainless steel brackets throughout testing. At a ligation force of 500 g, the Starfire bracket gave the greatest frictional resistance. At ligation forces of 200 and 50 g, the greatest frictional resistance was seen with Allure III. After a period of simulated wear, frictional resistance of Starfire tended to increase at the greatest ligation load while that of both ceramics decreased slightly at the two lower ligation loads. The ceramic brackets caused abrasive wear of the archwire surfaces and the consequent wear debris may have contributed to the changes in frictional resistance seen with Starfire and Allure III. Dentaurm brackets produced minimal frictional resistance in any test and negligible change with wear.

A comparison of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems.

1997 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 309-317 ◽  
Author(s):  
G E Read-Ward ◽  
S P Jones ◽  
E H Davies
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Bracket

scholarly journals Orthodontic bracket bonding to glazed full-contour zirconia

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ji-Young Kwak ◽  
Hyo-Kyung Jung ◽  
Il-Kyung Choi ◽  
Tae-Yub Kwon
Keyword(s):  
Orthodontic Bracket

scholarly journals Plaque accumulation and Streptococcus mutans levels around self-ligating bracket clips and elastomeric modules: A randomized controlled trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 97-102
Author(s):  
Dhaval Fadia ◽  
Meghna Vandekar ◽  
Nikhilesh Vaid ◽  
Viraj Doshi
Keyword(s):  
Streptococcus Mutans ◽  
Bacterial Colonization ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Tooth Surface ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Colony Forming Units ◽  
Orthodontic Patients ◽  
Plaque Control ◽  
Bacterial Plaque

Aim To determine the effect of two different ligating systems that is, elastomeric modules and self-ligating (SL) bracket systems (Smartclip - 3M Unitek) with respect to harboring bacterial plaque in fixed orthodontic treatment. Objectives To assess, evaluate, and compare the amount of plaque accumulation and Streptococcus mutans colonization around elastomeric ligation and SL clips in the smart clip appliance. Materials and Methods A total of 111 orthodontic patients scheduled for fixed orthodontic treatments were selected for this split maxillary arch study. All the patients were bonded with smart-clip (3M Unitek) SL brackets, and the wire was placed into the bracket slots, on the randomly selected hemi arch, elastomeric modules were placed for the study to be conducted. Microbial and periodontal plaque accumulation was recorded at 3-time intervals post ligation. Plaque index-by Silness and Loe, modified Quigely Hein index, bleeding on probing were evaluated, and biofilm was collected from the tooth surface after 30 days and placed in petri dishes containing Mitis Salivarius agar for bacterial culturing. Result It was observed that the side where ligation was done with elastomeric modules accumulated more plaque and increase in S. mutans colony forming units as compared to the side without external ligation (P < 0.05). Conclusion Reduced bacterial colonization and better plaque control was seen with SL orthodontic bracket appliance system as compared to conventional ligation method.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document