| ObjectiveThis study was conducted to investigate the difference of frictional resistance of variouscombinations of three kinds of lingual brackets and four different kinds of archwires which wereligated in two different ways.MethodsThe static and kinetic friction of3kinds of brackets：e-brace individual lingual bracket，STblingual bracket，Pute lingual bracket，coupled with4types of archwires：0.016inch TMA,0.016inch SS,0.016x0.022TMA,0.016x0.022SS under two different kinds of ligation：elastometricligators, ligature wire, in the palatal side in room temperature.Results1. There was a statistically significant difference of frictional resistance, both static and kinetic,between the two groups. The frictional resistance from the ligature wire group is greater.2. The e-brace bracket provides greater frictional resistance than the other two brackets under thesame conditions.The difference between STb and PUTE was statistically insignificant.3.0.016x0.022inch arch wires provided significantly greater frictional resistance than0.016inch arch wire.4. The regression result showed that the type of lingual bracket, archwires, and the way ofligation, in that order, were important factors affecting frictional resistance.Conclusion1. Static friction is greater than kinetic friction in all three types of lingual bracket.2. Elastometric ligators, compared with ligature wire, can increase frictional resistance. 3. e-brace individual lingual brackets provide greater frictional resistance than both STb andPUTE brackets.4.0.016x0.022inch arch wires provide greater frictional resistance than0.016inch arch wires.5. The types of brackets, arch wire and form of ligation are important variables affecting thefriction of the lingual correctional system, with the largest impact coming from the brackets. |
PDF Full Text Request