ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states
Glenys A. Thorstenson, BS,a and Robert P. Kusy, MS, PhDa-d Chapel Hill, NC The frictional properties of conventional stainless steel brackets that were coupled with rectangular stainless steel archwires and ligated with stainless steel ligature wires and the frictional properties of closed self-ligating brackets coupled with the same archwires were compared in terms of second-order angulation. The slides of these self-ligating brackets passively restrained the archwires within the slots. As a control, the frictional properties of the opened self-ligating brackets, which were ligated with stainless steel ligature wires, were measured. The resistance to sliding of the conventional brackets and the opened self-ligating brackets were measured at ligation forces ranging from 200 to 600 cN and at angles from 9 to 9. The resistances to sliding of the closed self-ligating brackets were measured at the same angles, but no external ligation forces were applied. In the passive configuration, the conventional brackets exhibited similar frictional resistance as the opened self-ligating brackets, whereas the closed self-ligating brackets exhibited no friction. In the active configuration, all brackets exhibited increased resistance to sliding as the angulation increased. At all angles, the resistances to sliding of the closed self-ligating brackets were lower than those of the conventional brackets because of the absence of a ligation force when the slide restrained the archwire. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:361-70)

onventional stainless steel brackets have been well characterized, particularly in terms of resistance to sliding (RS) in the second order of space when coupled with various archwires and ligated with stainless steel ligature wires.1-7 The RS of an archwire-bracket couple is the combined effect of up to 3 components: classical friction (FR), elastic binding (BI), and/or physical notching (NO):8 RS = FR + BI + NO

FR is caused by contact between the archwire and the bracket slot floor and/or a slot wall as the bracket slides along the archwire. FR always counteracts the sliding force applied, thus reducing the effective force delivered to the tooth. When the archwire just contacts both edges of the slot walls as the bracket is angulated relaFrom the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. aDepartment of Biomedical Engineering. bDepartment of Orthodontics. cDental Research Center. dCurriculum in Applied and Materials Science. Reprint requests to: Robert P. Kusy, University of North Carolina, DRC Building 210H, CB#7455, Chapel Hill, NC 27599; e-mail: rkusy@bme.unc.edu. Submitted, August 2000; revised and accepted, January 2001. Copyright 2001 by the American Association of Orthodontists. 0889-5406/2001/$35.00 + 0 8/1/116090 doi:10.1067/mod.2001.116090

tive to the archwire, the BI component begins to contribute to RS. The angle () at which the archwire first contacts the edges of the slot walls is called the critical contact angle for binding (c).5,9 At still greater values, the bracket may physically deform the archwire, thus adding the NO component to the BI and FR components of RS.10 One method to decrease the magnitude of RS involves the reduction of the FR component by minimizing the normal force caused by the ligation.11 When used in conjunction with a conventional bracket, ligation methods (eg, stainless steel ligature wires2,12 or polymeric O rings13,14) apply a normal force to the archwire to restrain the archwire within the bracket slot. In contrast, self-ligating brackets use a restraining slide or clip to keep the archwire in the slot.15 Some slides actively apply a spring force to the archwire when the archwire is greater than the lumen of the slot (eg, IN-Ovation, SPEED, and Time), whereas others passively restrain the archwire in the slot (eg, Activa, Damon, and Twinlock). According to Berger,16 Damon,17 and Harradine and Birnie,18 a reduction in treatment time with the use of self-ligating brackets is attributable to a decrease or an absence of a ligation force, which in turn lowers FR. The lower values of FR for various archwires coupled with self-ligating brack361

362 Thorstenson and Kusy

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics October 2001

Table I. Bracket,

archwire, and ligature materials

Size (in) Material Manufacturer SS SS SS SS SDS Ormco* SDS Ormco SDS Ormco GAC

examined
Appliance Product Brackets

Mini Diamond Twin 0.022 Damon SL 0.022 Archwire Standard rectangular .018 .025 Ligature Preformed 0.010 SS, Stainless steel. *Sybron Dental Specialties Ormco. GAC International, Inc.

Fig 1. Diagram of bracket types evaluated: conventional stainless steel twin bracket and closed and opened selfligating bracket. To left is side view of bracket alone, and to right is top view of bracket with archwire and ligation method shown. Side views of bracket types are used throughout figures to identify data related to each bracket type. Parametric dimensions (slot, size, and width) are also defined.

In the present study the RS of self-ligating brackets that passively restrain the archwire is compared with that of conventional stainless steel archwire-bracket couples that are tied in by stainless steel ligature wires to establish a model* for future examination of other self-ligating bracket systems. These self-ligating brackets were hypothesized to have a lower RS at all secondorder angulations than the conventional brackets in the dry or wet (saliva) state. In the passive configuration the self-ligating brackets exhibit a negligible RS because of the lack of a ligation force. In the active configuration the magnitudes of BIs that are added to FRs are similar for both self-ligating and conventional bracket systems. Thus the absence of an FR component for the self-ligating brackets results in overall lower RS in both the passive and the active configurations than for the conventional brackets.
MATERIAL AND METHODS

ets versus conventional stainless steel brackets have been documented previously.15,19-23 Although the expected normal force caused by the ligature may be lower or absent in self-ligating brackets, the force caused by contact with the edges of the bracket slot during second-order angulation may still influence RS above c.24-27 Loftus et al24 noted that when a selfligating bracket was allowed to tip until the edges of the slot contacted the archwire before frictional testing, no significant difference was observed between the RS measured for self-ligating and conventional stainless steel brackets. Similarly, Pizzoni et al25 observed that although RS was low for values of 0 and 3, the magnitude of RS increased proportionally with increasing tip for values of 6, 9, and 12. Both studies suggested that the RS increased because of an added BI component when the bracket is placed at a of c or greater. However, the precise behavior of the selfligating bracket in the BI regimen requires elucidation.

Two types of brackets were compared in this study: a conventional bracket and a self-ligating bracket (Fig 1). The conventional bracket was the Mini Diamond Twin bracket (Sybron Dental Specialties Ormco, Orange, Calif; Table I). The self-ligating bracket was the Damon SL bracket (Sybron Dental Specialties Ormco), which passively restrains the archwire through a slide. All brackets had a 0.022-in slot and were stainless steel. The conventional brackets had a prescribed torque of 7 but no angulation. The self-ligating brackets had the same amount of prescribed torque and an angulation of +2. The brackets were coupled with .018 .025in stainless steel rectangular archwires (Sybron Dental Specialties Ormco) to allow for a greater clearance and thus a greater number of data points to define the passive region than with .019 .025in archwires. The slot of each bracket (Fig 1) was measured 6 times
*Although

rotation of the tooth is an expected byproduct of sliding mechanics, the effects of rotation on the RS were not evaluated in this simplified model. The rotation of a tooth can be eliminated by adding a lingual appliance or a transpalatal bar to produce a second movement that is equal and opposite to the one produced by the archwire-bracket couple during sliding.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 120, Number 4

Thorstenson and Kusy 363

Fig 2. Photograph showing position of archwire (AW), test bracket (BR), and simulated adjacent brackets of known widths that were machined from Teflon (registered trademark of Dupont de Nemours, Wilmington, Del). Interbracket distance (IBD) was set at 18 mm.

by using the optics of a Kentron microhardness tester (Kent Cliff Labs, Peekskill, NY).5 Three measurements of the mesiodistal width of each bracket (Fig 1) were made with calipers (L.S. Starrett Co, Athol, Mass). The size of the side of each archwire that contacts the slots floor (Fig 1) was measured 5 times with a micrometer (Sony -mate Digital Micrometer; Sony Magnescale America, Inc, Orange, Calif). For the conventional bracket, a stainless steel ligature wire of .010-in diameter (GAC International, Inc, Central Islip, NY) applied the normal force to the archwire (Fig 1). In contrast, the slide of the self-ligating bracket covered the slot, thus holding the archwire in place (Fig 1). This is referred to as a closed self-ligating bracket. To establish that the self-ligating bracket can indeed be compared with the conventional bracket, the opened self-ligating bracket (in which the slot is not covered by the slide) was also tested (Fig 1). The slides were removed by using the manufacturers suggested method. Then .010-in diameter stainless steel ligature wires were used to apply the normal force to the archwires that were coupled with the opened self-ligating brackets. The frictional testing method and analysis have been previously described. 6 Briefly, the frictional testing apparatus was mounted on the transverse beam of a mechanical testing machine (Instron Model TTCM; Instron Corp, Canton, Mass). The only modi-

fication to the frictional testing apparatus was to replace the ball bearings with simulated brackets made from Teflon (registered trademark of Dupont de Nemours, Wilmington, Del; Fig 2). For all tests, the interbracket distance was 18 mm. The load cells that monitor the normal and the tensile forces were calibrated. The bracket, archwire, and ligature wires were cleaned with ethanol to remove surface debris. The brackets were mounted so as to negate any preangulation and pretorque. The archwire-bracket couples were tested at values of 9, 7, 5, 3, 1, 0, 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 0 at a single normal force and at an ambient temperature of 34C. The tests were repeated for the same values and normal forces in the wet state. The operators saliva was of normal viscosity, as measured by using a cone-and-plate viscometer (Brookfield Model LVTDV-II CP; Brookfield Engineering Laboratories, Inc, Stoughton, Mass). 4 The saliva was dripped continuously onto the archwire-bracket couple by using a peristaltic pump at a flow rate of 3 mL/min. Two conventional brackets were tested over a range of normal forces, which were, in the order tested, as follows: 200, 400, 300, 500, and 600 cN (1 cN = 1 g). For each value, the bracket was translated 1.25 mm along the archwire at a rate of 1 cm/min. Each drawing force was measured and plotted as a function of distance by the testing software. Each kinetic drawing force was

364 Thorstenson and Kusy

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics October 2001

same as for the conventional brackets in the dry and wet states. For each set of values tested, a plot of versus RS was made. A second-order polynomial equation was fit to the data by using Microsoft Excel software (Microsoft Corp, Redmond, Wash).6 The first derivative of the equation was calculated, and the minimum of the parabola, which corresponds to the true of 0 of the couple, was determined. The values were corrected for the zero offset, and the absolute values of the were taken. The RS was then plotted as a function of the value. The theoretical c was calculated from the average values of slot, width, and size.5 The data were divided into passive and active regions on the basis of the theoretical c; regression lines were fitted to the passive and active regions of the plotted data. Each experimental c was then determined from the intersection of the 2 regression lines. In the passive configuration, Student t tests28 were used to evaluate the data for all brackets.
RESULTS

Fig 3. RS as function of second-order angulation () at various applied normal forces for conventional bracket (top), closed self-ligating bracket (middle), and opened self-ligating bracket (bottom). Normal or ligation forces are 200 cN (squares), 300 cN (diamonds), 400 cN (triangles), 500 cN (circles), 600 cN (stars), or none (inverted triangles). Data for dry state are at left, and data for wet state are at right. Critical contact angle for binding (c) represents, for given bracket type, average value of both dry and wet states at which regression lines of passive and active configurations intersect. Note that unit of force, 1 cN, is equal to approximately 1 g.

determined by averaging the values within the kinetic region of each plot. Each RS was calculated by dividing the kinetic drawing force by 2. The closed self-ligating brackets were tested in both the dry and wet states. Five brackets were tested for each state. The same values were tested as for the conventional brackets; however, no external normal force was applied. Each slide was closed over an archwire to retain it within the slot. To establish that the comparison between the conventional and the self-ligating brackets was valid, the opened self-ligating brackets were tested with a ligature wire to restrain the archwire within the slot (Table I). The applied normal forces and the values tested were the

The RS for the conventional bracket in the dry state is a constant value for any given normal force at values below c but increases as the value increases above c (Fig 3). The wet state follows the same trend but exhibits slightly higher RS than the dry state, as has been observed previously for stainless steel couples.6 The average slot is 0.024 in,* the average size is 0.018 in, and the average width is 0.126 in. The closed self-ligating bracket in either the dry or the wet state exhibits little to no RS below c (Fig 3). Above c, the RS increases as the value between the bracket and the archwire increases. Again, the RS is slightly higher in the wet state than in the dry state. The average slot and size are the same as those of the conventional bracket; the average width, however, is 0.102 in. Slight differences in the values for c are observed between the conventional bracket and the closed selfligating bracket because of the greater width of the conventional bracket.5,9 For the opened self-ligating bracket in either the dry or the wet state, the RS displays similar behavior to that of the conventional bracket (Fig 3). As in both previous cases, the RS is slightly higher in the wet state than in the dry state. The value of c for the self-ligating bracket in the opened or closed position is the same but is higher than that for the conventional bracket. The reason for this difference in c values is discussed below.
*Slots

have been shown to be as much as several thousandths of an inch greater than their nominally stated values.5

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 120, Number 4

Thorstenson and Kusy 365

Fig 4. Regression lines for RS as function of for data shown in Figure 3. DISCUSSION Regression analyses

Fig 5. Plots of RS as function of for conventional bracket at normal force of 200 cN (top), closed selfligating bracket with no external normal force (middle), and opened self-ligating bracket at normal force of 200 cN (bottom).

For each normal force applied to the conventional brackets in both the dry and the wet states, the regression lines are fit to the data in each of the passive and active configurations (Fig 4). The intersection of the regression lines represents the experimental c for the bracket-archwire system (Fig 4). The average value for the experimental c for this conventional bracket and a .018 .022in archwire is 2.9. Below c, the RS is a constant value that depends on the ligation force. Above c, the RS increases as the angulation increases. Two of the regression lines (Fig 4) overlap in the active region for the dry state. For an individual conventional bracket in either the dry or the wet state, however, the scatter about the regression lines for a single normal force is minimal (Fig 5). When the closed self-ligating brackets are considered for both the dry and wet states, the RS for the passive configuration has a value near zero (Fig 4). The average experimental c for this self-ligating bracket with a .018 .022in archwire is 3.8. Because the width of this self-ligating bracket is less than that for the conventional bracket, the c of the former is

greater than that of the latter.9 Consequently, sliding mechanics can begin earlier after alignment and leveling with this self-ligating bracket than with this conventional bracket. For a single closed self-ligating bracket in either the dry or the wet state, the data conform to the regression lines for the passive and active regions (Fig 5). The opened self-ligating bracket exhibits sliding behavior similar to that of the conventional bracket, except for the c, which is common for this self-ligating bracket. Overlap of the regression lines for different normal forces (Fig 4) is again observed for both the dry and the wet states. Likewise, the data for a single normal force correspond well to the regression line for a single opened self-ligating bracket in either the dry or the wet state (Fig 5).
Passive configuration (RS = FR)

For the conventional bracket in the passive configuration, only FR contributes to RS. Each regression line of RS as a function of is a relatively constant value below c for each normal force in either the dry or the

366 Thorstenson and Kusy

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics October 2001

Table II. Linear

regression analyses for specific data plots in the dry state

Normal or ligation force (cN) 0 200 300 400 500 600 0 200 300 400 500 600 Combined Combined Conventional m* b* r n P value m* Closed self-ligating b* r n P value m* <.01 0.51 1.0 0.31 1.6 1.6 32 30 30 32 29 35 31 0.11 60 40 38 20 19 7.3 7.7 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.95 0.99 0.97 0.97 14 15 13 14 14 70 70 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 121 0.99 31 <.001 39 118 0.99 12 <.001 37 100 0.99 12 <.001 44 108 0.97 12 <.001 38 76 0.99 12 <.001 36 58 0.93 12 <.001 38 2.2 0.96 60 <.001 0.11 2.6 0.96 60 <.001 25 36 58 63 66 0.11 0.45 0.03 0.40 0.30 15 15 15 15 15 NS NS NS NS NS Opened self-ligating b* r n P value

Figure 4

Regression vs RS = FR

0.46 0.08 0.48 34 3.2 4.3 5.4 2.8 2.3 22 34 49 57 82 0.47 0.84 0.51 0.40 0.16 12 11 13 12 12 NS <.001 NS NS NS

vs RS = FR + BI

7 9

r vs BI = RS FR NBI vs BI = RS FR

32 0.09

1.3 0.99 31 1.6 0.99 31

<.001 <.001

*Slopes (m) and y-axis intercepts (b) for linear regression equations of the form: y = mx + b. Correlation coefficients (r) and number of data points (n) that result in a probability (P) for the regression line. When P value is not significant (NS; P > .05), little linear association exists between x and y.28

Table III. Linear

regression analyses for specific data plots in the wet state

Normal or ligation force (cN) 0 200 300 400 500 600 0 200 300 400 500 600 Combined Combined Conventional m* b* r n P value m* 2.2 4.1 29 3.5 53 4.9 61 2.6 92 4.2 100 33 33 33 31 32 33 0.12 60 35 23 17 21 6.9 7.3 0.59 0.29 0.55 0.22 0.48 1.00 0.98 0.98 0.97 1.00 0.98 0.98 12 12 12 11 11 14 14 14 15 15 72 72 <.05 NS NS NS NS 38 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 146 0.98 32 <.001 36 94 0.99 40 98 1.00 37 66 1.00 41 64 0.98 40 46 0.97 <.001 38 0.22 0.99 <.001 0.12 5.7 0.97 13 12 13 13 12 63 63 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 <.001 Closed self-ligating b* r n P value m* <.01 0.34 34 1.4 51 1.0 70 2.0 93 2.3 107 0.10 0.34 0.18 0.39 0.22 13 14 13 13 14 NS NS NS NS NS Opened self-ligating b* r n P value

Figure 4

Regression vs RS = FR

1.0 0.47 33

vs RS = FR + BI

7 9

r vs BI = RS FR NBI vs BI = RS FR

38 2.5 0.11 2.7

0.98 32 0.98 32

*Slopes (m) and y-axis intercepts (b) for linear regression equations of the form: y = mx + b. Correlation coefficients (r) and number of data points (n) that result in a probability (P) for the regression line. When the P value is not significant (NS; P > .05), little linear association exists between x and y.28

wet state (Fig 4). In neither the dry nor the wet state do the intercepts increase a constant amount for each increase in the normal force (Tables II and III). The RS for the dry state is statistically different from that for the wet state (P < .05). In this configuration the kinetic coefficient of friction (k)* describes the amount of RS per unit of normal or ligation force. When used in con*The is given by the equation = FR/N = RS/N, in which FR is the classik k cal friction force (which is equivalent to the RS in the passive configuration) and 29 N is the applied normal force. Thus the slope of the regression line for a plot of N versus FR is equal to k, which was the method used herein.

junction with a stainless steel archwire and a stainless steel ligature wire, the k of the conventional bracket is 0.14 in the dry state and 0.17 in the wet state. These values are comparable with previous results for stainless steel couples.3,5,6 The closed self-ligating bracket exhibits little to no friction in the passive configuration for either the dry or the wet state (Fig 4). Thus little to no ligation force is applied to the archwire by the bracket. The value of k for the bracket-archwire system is therefore irrelevant when the slide is used to restrain the

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 120, Number 4

Thorstenson and Kusy 367

Fig 6. For passive configuration of RS (which is equal to FR), differences between regression lines of conventional bracket minus closed self-ligating bracket (top), between regression lines of opened self-ligating bracket minus closed self-ligating bracket (middle), and between regression lines of conventional bracket minus opened self-ligating bracket (bottom) as function of .

archwire. The differences between the regression lines for the conventional bracket and the closed selfligating bracket are due to the lack of an external normal force applied to the closed self-ligating bracket (Fig 6). When the opened self-ligating bracket is coupled with a stainless steel archwire and tied in with a stainless steel ligature wire, however, the RS in the passive region is a relatively constant nonzero value for any given normal force (Fig 4). The values of k for the dry and wet states can now be calculated as 0.11 and 0.18, respectively. The RS values obtained in the dry state are significantly different from those obtained in the wet state (P < .05). The values of k for the conventional bracket system and the opened self-ligating bracket system are not significantly different (P > .05; Fig 6). The differences between the regression lines for the opened self-ligating bracket and the closed self-ligating bracket are again caused by the differences in the amount of normal force (Fig 6).

Fig 7. Regression lines for active configuration of BI (which is equal to RS minus FR) as function of relative contact angle (r) (which equals minus c) for conventional bracket (top), closed self-ligating bracket (middle), and opened self-ligating bracket (bottom). Because amount of binding at a given angle is not dependent on normal force,30 all data for given bracket type are combined.

Active configuration (RS = FR + BI)

Both FR and BI contribute to the RS in the active configuration. The value for the component caused by FR is dependent solely on the ligation force and not on the value that is applied to the bracket. The BI component, however, contributes an additional amount of resistance that depends in part on the relative angulation (r), which is equal to the actual value imposed between the archwire-bracket couple minus c. Because of the additional component of RS caused by the ligation force applied to the conventional bracket, the level of RS at which the regression line of the conventional bracket intercepts the y-axis is greater than that of the closed self-ligating bracket (Tables II and III). This initial offset, which is due to FR, produces an overall higher RS for the conventional bracket than for the closed self-ligating bracket (at any > c). Although not

368 Thorstenson and Kusy

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics October 2001

Fig 8. For active configuration of BI, differences between regression lines of conventional bracket minus closed self-ligating bracket (top), between regression lines of opened self-ligating bracket minus closed self-ligating bracket (middle), and between regression lines of conventional bracket minus opened self-ligating bracket (bottom) as function of r.

Fig 9. Regression lines for active configuration of BI as function of normal force caused by binding (NBI) for conventional bracket (top), closed self-ligating bracket (middle), and opened self-ligating bracket (bottom). Again, all data for given bracket type are combined.

shown, plots of the differences between the regression lines for the conventional bracket and the closed selfligating bracket as a function of value in both the dry and wet states therefore appear similar to the plots in Fig 6. Similar comparisons may be made between the closed and opened self-ligating brackets. The sliding behavior of the opened self-ligating bracket appears similar to that of the conventional bracket for values greater than c (ie, r > 0). Because the value for FR is a constant, FR can be subtracted from RS, leaving only the BI component. When plots of BI as a function of r are examined (Fig 7), the BI force for the closed self-ligating bracket increases a similar amount per degree as for the conventional bracket. The BI behavior of the conventional bracket appears similar to both the closed and opened self-ligating brackets for the dry and wet states (Fig 8). To better compare the 3 bracket types, the normal forces caused by binding (NBI) are calculated by using the formula proposed by Zufall and Kusy30:

NBI = [(16*E*I )/(Width*(2*IBD Width)) + BI]*sin(r) where E is Youngs modulus (E = 200 GPa),31 I is the nominal area moment of inertia for the archwire (I = 5.06 1015 m4),32 width is the average width of the particular bracket, and IBD is the interbracket distance. The BI force may then be plotted as a function of NBI, where the slope of each regression line represents the coefficient of binding (Fig 9). The data scatter somewhat more around the regression lines for the conventional bracket and the opened self-ligating bracket than for the closed self-ligating bracket. Overall, these linear regressions are quite similar (Tables II and III).
Clinical relevance

Although at a given r the BI component of the RS may be the same for both the conventional bracket and the closed self-ligating bracket, the component caused by FR and c are not the same. Together, they have a

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 120, Number 4

Thorstenson and Kusy 369

Fig 10. Clinically relevant illustrations comparing RS as a function of for conventional archwirebracket couple with ligation force of 200 cN (left) and for closed self-ligating bracket-archwire couple (right), both of which are in wet state. Values for RS are depicted at 3 values of : 0, 3.5, and 6. See text that details why, in terms of sliding with second-order angulation, this self-ligating bracket is superior to this conventional bracket.

profound effect on the values of RS in the case of second-order angulation. Consider a bracket on a tooth aligned and leveled to a value of 6 relative to the archwire. The value falls within the active configuration for both the conventional and the self-ligating bracket-archwire couples (Fig 10). If a conventional .022-in bracket is used with a .018 .025in archwire and is ligated with a force of 200 cN, the RS that must be overcome for tooth movement is approximately 140 cN (Fig 10). If a closed selfligating bracket is used with the same archwire, the RS is only about 80 cN (Fig 10). Thus if the same amount of force is applied to both types of bracket, a greater portion of that force is actually used to produce sliding with the self-ligating bracket than with the conventional bracket. If the practitioner delays the onset of sliding mechanics until the bracket on the tooth is aligned to a value of 3.5 relative to the archwire, the value is greater than c for the conventional bracket (where c = 3.1) but smaller than the c for the self-ligating bracket (where c = 3.8). Now the RS is approximately 55 cN for the conventional archwire-bracket system with a ligature force of 200 cN (Fig 10), whereas the RS is near zero for the self-ligating bracket-archwire system (Fig 10). Therefore all of the applied force is transferred to the tooth to produce movement when a self-ligating bracket is used. If the practitioner waits still longer to initiate sliding mechanics until the bracket is perfectly aligned to a value of 0 relative to the archwire, only

FR affects the movement of the tooth. For a conventional archwire-bracket couple with a ligation force of 200 cN, the RS is 34 cN. With the self-ligating bracket, the RS is again near zero (Fig 10). Thus even when both brackets are used in the passive configurations for second-order angulation, this self-ligating bracket allows more of the applied force to be used for sliding than does this conventional bracket. Under these circumstances, the self-ligating bracket can produce the same amount of sliding as the conventional archwire-bracket couple at a lower applied force. Clearly, the present experiment represents an oversimplification of the in-vivo situation because the firstand third-order effects have been neglected. The ligation method has been shown by Bednar and Gruendeman33 to affect the moment associated with tooth rotation, which, although not yet proved, is expected to affect RS. Bracket geometry and tooth physiology will also influence RS. The effects of rotation and torque on RS may be measured serially and superposed by using equation 1. Although within the present context this self-ligating bracket is superior to the conventional bracket, whether this self-ligating bracket is superior clinically depends on the summation of all these effects. This will be the subject of future research.
CONCLUSIONS

For RS in the second order of space, the following conclusions have been made:

370 Thorstenson and Kusy

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics October 2001

1. Opened self-ligating brackets are comparable with conventional stainless steel brackets when both are ligated with stainless steel ligature wires and tied in with the same amount of ligature force. 2. In the passive configuration no RS exists for the closed self-ligating bracket. 3. In the active configuration the BI component of the RS increases a similar amount per degree for the stainless steel conventional brackets and the stainless steel closed and opened self-ligating brackets. 4. Overall, the RS at any angle is lower for the selfligating brackets than for the conventional brackets because of the lower magnitude of the FR. The greater critical contact angle of binding for the self-ligating brackets than for the conventional brackets further reduces the RS at any angle above the critical contact angle. We thank Sybron Dental Specialties Ormco for the donation of the archwires and brackets used in this study and GAC International, Inc, for the donation of the ligature wires.
REFERENCES 1. Dickson JAS, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of the frictional characteristics of five initial alignment wires and stainless steel brackets at three bracket to wire angulations: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod 1994;21:15-22. 2. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional resistances between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod 1980;78:593-609. 3. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Prewitt MJ. Comparison of the frictional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod 1991;61:291-302. 4. Kusy RP, Schafer DL. Effect of salivary viscosity on frictional coefficients of orthodontic archwire/bracket couples. J Mater Sci Mater Med 1995;6:390-5. 5. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Assessment of second-order clearances between orthodontic archwires and bracket slots via the critical contact angle for binding. Angle Orthod 1999;69:71-80. 6. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Resistance to sliding of orthodontic appliances in the dry and wet states: influence of archwire alloy, interbracket distance, and bracket engagement. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;52:797-811. 7. Ogata RH, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG Jr, Sinha PK, Currier GF. Frictional resistances in stainless steel bracket-wire combinations with effects of vertical deflections. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:535-42. 8. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin Orthod 1997;3:166-77. 9. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Influence of archwire and bracket dimensions on sliding mechanics: derivations and determinations of the critical contact angles for binding. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:199208. 10. Articolo LC, Kusy K, Saunders CR, Kusy RP. Influence of ceramic and stainless steel brackets on the notching of archwires during clinical treatment. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:409-24. 11. McKamey RP, Kusy RP. Stress-relaxing composite ligature wires: formulations and characteristics. Angle Orthod 1999;69: 441-9.

12. Tidy DC. Frictional forces in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:249-54. 13. Dowling PA, Jones WB, Lagerstrom L, Sandham JA. An investigation into the behavioral characteristics of orthodontic elastomeric modules. Br J Orthod 1998;25:197-202. 14. Edwards GD, Davies EH, Jones SP. The ex vivo effect of ligation technique on the static frictional resistance of stainless steel brackets and archwires. Br J Orthod 1995;22:145-53. 15. Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:119-40. 16. Berger JL. The SPEED appliance: a 14-year update on this unique self-ligating orthodontic mechanism. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;105:217-23. 17. Damon DH. The rationale, evolution and clinical application of the self-ligating bracket. Clin Orthop 1998;1:52-61. 18. Harradine NWT, Birnie DJ. The clinical use of Activa self-ligating brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:319-28. 19. Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW, Sandrik JL. A comparative study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:513-22. 20. Berger JL. The influence of the SPEED brackets self-ligating design on force levels in tooth movement: a comparative in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:219-28. 21. Shivapuja PK, Berger J. A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:472-80. 22. Sims APT, Waters NE, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:377-85. 23. Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie D. A comparative in vitro study of the frictional characteristics of two types of self-ligating brackets and two types of pre-adjusted edgewise brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:589-96. 24. Loftus BP, Artun J, Nicholls JI, Alonzo TA, Stoner JA. Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116: 336-45. 25. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:283-91. 26. Read-Ward GE, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of selfligating and conventional orthodontic bracket systems. Br J Orthod 1997;24:309-17. 27. Sims APT, Waters NE, Birnie DJ. A comparison of the forces required to produce tooth movement ex vivo through three types of pre-adjusted brackets when subjected to determined tip or torque values. Br J Orthod 1994;21:367-73. 28. Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE, Nizam A. Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. Pacific Cove (CA): Brooks/Cole; 1998. p. 19-28, 88-96. 29. Jastrzebski ZD. The nature and properties of engineering materials. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1976. p. 183. 30. Zufall SW, Kusy RP. Sliding mechanics of coated composite wires and the development of an engineering model for binding. Angle Orthod 2000;70:34-47. 31. Kusy RP, Greenberg AR. Effects of composition and cross section on the elastic properties of orthodontic archwires. Angle Orthod 1981;51:325-41. 32. Thurow RC. Edgewise orthodontics. St Louis: Mosby; 1982. p. 332. 33. Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW. The influence of bracket design on moment production during axial rotation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;104:254-61.