Coefficients of friction for arch wires in stainless steel and polycrystalline alumina bracket slots. I. The dry state.

The surface roughness and the coefficients of friction were measured for sixteen arch wire-bracket combinations. The sample included one rectangular arch wire product from each of the four principal alloy groups and one bracket product from among the stainless steel and polycrystalline alumina inventory. Although subsamples representing both the 0.018-inch and the 0.022-inch slot sizes were evaluated, no differences were observed in their rankings. When tested over a series of eight incident angles, the optical surface roughness of representative stainless steel and alumina brackets averaged 0.148 and 0.193 microns, respectively. After testing at a single angle (82 degree) and referencing a nomogram, the roughness of the stainless steel, cobalt-chromium, beta-titanium, and nickel-titanium arch wire surfaces averaged 0.053, 0.129, 0.137, and 0.247 microns, respectively. When the various arch wire-bracket couples were pressed against an 0.010-inch stainless steel ligature wire at 34 degrees C and otherwise prevailing atmospheric conditions, the coefficients of friction ranged from stainless steel (lowest) to cobalt-chromium, nickel-titanium, and beta-titanium (highest)--regardless of bracket product or slot size. These results corroborated earlier observations in which the same arch wire products were drawn between stainless steel or alumina contact flats. In the current research, the average coefficient of kinetic friction for the stainless steel couple (0.139) was less than that for the stainless steel arch wire against a polycrystalline alumina bracket (0.174).

[1]  R. Kusy,et al.  Effects of sliding velocity on the coefficients of friction in a model orthodontic system. , 1989, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[2]  J. Gau,et al.  Comparative friction of orthodontic wires under dry and wet conditions. , 1986, American journal of orthodontics.

[3]  G. Andreasen,et al.  Evaluation of friction forces in the 0.022 x 0.028 edgewise bracket in vitro. , 1970, Journal of biomechanics.

[4]  R. Kusy Morphology of polycrystalline alumina brackets and its relationship to fracture toughness and strength. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[5]  Creekmore Td The importance of interbracket width in orthodontic tooth movement. , 1976 .

[6]  J. Nicolls Frictional forces in fixed orthodontic appliances. , 1968, The Dental practitioner and dental record.

[7]  R P Kusy,et al.  Effects of surface roughness on the coefficients of friction in model orthodontic systems. , 1990, Journal of biomechanics.

[8]  B K Moore,et al.  A comparison of frictional forces during simulated canine retraction of a continuous edgewise arch wire. , 1986, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[9]  L. Tanner,et al.  The use of laser ligth in the study of metal surfaces , 1976 .

[10]  D. Hensler,et al.  Light scattering from fused polycrystalline aluminum oxide surfaces. , 1972, Applied optics.

[11]  L. H. Tanner,et al.  A study of the surface parameters of ground and lapped metal surfaces, using specular and diffuse reflection of laser light , 1976 .

[12]  G. E. Scott Fracture toughness and surface cracks--the key to understanding ceramic brackets. , 1988, The Angle orthodontist.

[13]  R J Nikolai,et al.  A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. , 1980, American journal of orthodontics.

[14]  J. H. Westbrook,et al.  The Science of hardness testing and its research applications : based on papers presented at a symposium of the American Society for Metals, October 18 to 20, 1971 , 1973 .