See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316230003

In vitro evaluation of the influence of velocity

on sliding resistance of stainless steel arch
wires in a self-ligating...

Article in Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research May 2017

DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12156

CITATIONS READS

0 27

7 authors, including:

Domenico Dalessandri James Tsoi

Universit degli Studi di Brescia The University of Hong Kong
76 PUBLICATIONS 156 CITATIONS 65 PUBLICATIONS 186 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jukka Pekka Matinlinna Corrado Paganelli

The University of Hong Kong Universit degli Studi di Brescia
193 PUBLICATIONS 2,338 CITATIONS 110 PUBLICATIONS 396 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dental materials: R&D and understand the science View project

adhesion in dentistry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by James Tsoi on 20 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Accepted: 28 February 2017

DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12156

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

In vitro evaluation of the influence of velocity on sliding

resistance of stainless steel arch wires in a self-ligating
orthodontic bracket

F. Savoldi1,2 |L. Visconti1|D. Dalessandri1 |S. Bonetti1|J. K. H. Tsoi2|

J. P. Matinlinna2|C. Paganelli1

1
Department of Orthodontics,Dental
School,University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy
2
Dental Materials Science,Faculty of
Dentistry,Prince Philip Dental Hospital,The
University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
Correspondence
F. Savoldi, Department of Orthodontics,
Dental School, P.zza Spedali Civili 1, 25123,
Brescia, Italy.
Email: fabiosavoldi@live.com
Structured Abstract
Introduction: Of the variables used by in vitro studies of resistance to sliding (RS) in
orthodontics, sliding velocity (SV) of the wire is often the one farthest from its clinical
counterpart. We investigated whether velocity influences the RS at values approxi-
mating the orthodontic movement.
Methods: A SS self-ligating bracket with a NiTi clip was fixed onto a custom-made
model. Different shaped orthodontic SS wires of four sizes and two types (round,
0.020 and 0.022; rectangular, 0.0160.022 and 0.0170.025) were tested
using an Instron testing machine. Wires were pulled at four velocities (1102mm/s,
1103mm/s, 1104mm/s, 1105mm/s). Shapiro-Wilk test was used to evaluate
the normal distribution of the data; two-way ANOVA was performed to compare
means in the RS with wire characteristics and SV. Significance level was set at P<.05.
Results: RS was higher for rectangular wires, and for those with larger diameters.
Lower SV was associated with lower RS, with wire type and size having an interaction
effect. The RS relatively to SV can be represented as: RS [ln(SV)]+, where and
are constants.
Conclusions: At very low SV and low normal forces, SV influences the RS of SS archwires
in orthodontic brackets, and the proportionality is logarithmic. Although respecting these
parameters in vitro is challenging, quantitative evaluations of RS should be carried out at
clinically relevant velocities if aiming at translational application in the clinical scenario.

KEYWORDS
in vitro model, orthodontic friction, orthodontic tooth movement, orthodontics, resistance to
sliding, self-ligating

1| INTRODUCTION Several variables have been investigated in orthodontics, such as

In general, the friction force is linearly proportional to the normal load
between two bodies in contact and it is independent of the apparent
area of contact between those two bodies.1 A distinction is made be-
tween static and kinetic friction: the former is the force preventing the
sliding motion of one object over another at equilibrium, the latter is
the force that resists the sliding once in motion.2
material,3 surface,4 dimensions and shape of the slot and wire 5
and
6
ligating force, which may contribute to friction. Moreover, these fac-
tors are affected by deformation of the wire and by the geometric re-
lationship between each structure,5,7 leading to the partitioning of the
resistance to sliding (RS) in different components.8
This said, the sliding velocity (SV) should be considered as an im-
portant variable, as the difference between laboratory testing and

Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017;20:119125. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ocr 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. | 119
Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 |
120
clinical reality of nearly six orders of magnitude cannot be ignored.9
The relationship between the SV and friction has received in-depth
evaluation elsewhere in mechanics,10,11 physics,12 mathematics10
and chemistry,13,14 from both microscopic11,15,16 and macroscopic16
perspectives. However, to the best of our knowledge, no study in or-
thodontics has clearly illustrated agreements with the logarithmic be-
haviour explained in the general mechanical models.17,18
In orthodontics, SV is present in any sliding mechanics and stick-
slip behaviour leading to transitions from static to dynamic frictional
19,20
coefficients has been observed, with effects on SV as theorized by
Rossouw etal.20 However, the same authors stated about SV that this
observation is not well-documented in orthodontic in vitro analyses.20
In fact, SV remains one of the clinical variables the magnitude of which is
least well replicated in vitro, with only two studies directly quantifying the
influence of SV on RS,9,21 and none of them used a self-ligating bracket.
The purpose of this laboratory work was to investigate whether
the RS of the arch wire in the slot of a self-ligating bracket is influenced
by the SV, especially at values closer to those of clinical orthodontic
movement. Furthermore, we set out to formulate a quantitative de-
scription of the phenomenon.
2| MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1|Test settings
A single self-ligating SS (stainless steel) interactive bracket (declared
slot size of 0.0220.028) for right upper central incisor (inclination
+17 and angulation +4) with a NiTi (nickel-titanium) clip (Empower,
American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA) was fixed using a light-
cured adhesive (TransbondXT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) on a
custom-made model. Slot height, distance between bottom and clip at
resting position (slot depth), and clip activation range were measured
(A)
SAVOLDI etal.
with optical microscope at 5 magnification. Normal forces for each
wire size were estimated. An interactive self-ligating bracket was used in
order to apply a constant normal force to wires of the same size and type.
The laboratory model ensured that the surface where the bracket
was bonded was perpendicular to the floor (Figure1). The position with
0 of angulation on the second and third order was determined using
a jig made by a 0.02150.028 wire (SS, American Orthodontics,
Sheboygan, WI, USA) fixed on the model during hardening of the resin,
and then removed (Figure1A-B). This ensured 3D alignment between
wire and slot, allowing to attribute the RS only to the normal force
exerted by the active clip of the SL bracket.
An Instron 5848 Micro Tester machine (Norwood, MA, USA) with
static load cell2kN, was used under dry conditions at 20C1C and
45%1% humidity. The constant of elasticity (K) of the NiTi clip was mea-
sured through tensile test at 1.7102mm/s for a displacement of 0.4mm.
Hundred millimeter wire samples of four different diameters
were tested, of round (0.020 and 0.022), and rectangular type
(0.0160.022 and 0.0170.025; SS, American Orthodontics,
Sheboygan, WI, USA). Wires were randomly selected from dif-
ferent production lots and coupled with four different velocities
(1102mm/s, 1103mm/s, 1104mm/s, 1105mm/s). Tests were
performed starting from a constant distance of 30mm from the clamps
to the bracket, to keep the elastic properties of the samples constant
from test to test. The total archwires displacement was 90sSV, thus
from 0.9mm for the 1102mm/s sample to 0.0009mm for the
1105mm/s. Each combination was tested 10 times, changing the
wire after each test to avoid bias due to alterations during the process.
2.2|Data analysis
Because of our interest in the SV, we considered only the RS dur-
ing motion (SV>0). Therefore, values of RS or displacement 0 were
(B)
F I G U R E 1 Test set-up and detail of the
upper, lateral, frontal and posterior views of
the bracket held by the jig, without (A) and
with (B) the resin composite
SAVOLDI etal. |
121

T A B L E 1 Mean values of the resistance to sliding at different velocities for each sample, and normality of the distribution of each data set

CI Shapiro-Wilk test

Wire Speed (mm/s) Force (N) SD Upper bound Lower bound Value P
2
0.020 110 0.044 0.010 0.033 0.054 0.90 0.214
1103 0.036 0.006 0.025 0.046 0.91 0.279
4
110 0.028 0.007 0.018 0.039 0.97 0.854
1105 0.031 0.011 0.020 0.041 0.84 0.050
2
0.022 110 0.105 0.022 0.094 0.115 0.91 0.298
1103 0.084 0.010 0.074 0.095 0.93 0.462
4
110 0.063 0.016 0.053 0.073 0.94 0.534
1105 0.034 0.010 0.024 0.045 0.85 0.065
2
0.0160.022 110 0.127 0.029 0.116 0.137 0.90 0.225
1103 0.101 0.021 0.091 0.111 0.92 0.334
4
110 0.078 0.013 0.068 0.089 0.95 0.626
1105 0.067 0.012 0.057 0.078 0.78 0.009
2
0.0170.025 110 0.133 0.024 0.123 0.144 0.93 0.439
1103 0.106 0.020 0.096 0.116 0.86 0.072
4
110 0.096 0.018 0.085 0.106 0.91 0.308
1105 0.075 0.018 0.065 0.085 0.91 0.273

SD, standard deviation; CI, 95% confidence interval.

Three SV models were generated to describe the mechanical

behaviour: one with SV, a second with (SV)2 and a third with
ln(SV). Respective R2 were calculated to assess the fitting of
the curves at each velocity, and only the most representative was
chosen.

3|RESULTS

F I G U R E 2 Tangential force (N) relative to time, at the four
different SV of 0.020 specimen
omitted in the analysis. The removal of these values is also justified
on a number of other grounds: RS<0 means that the machine is not
moving in the testing direction; RS=0 means that there is no contact
between the archwire and the bracket; a displacement 0 means that
SV0.
The values corresponding to the first 90s of the tests were ana-
lysed (SPSS v.22, IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A Shapiro-Wilk test was
performed to evaluate the normal distribution of the data. Then, fac-
torial analysis (two-way ANOVA) with Least Significant Difference post
hoc evaluation was used, because each factor had less than four cat-
egories. Differences in the mean values of RS, relatively to the SV and
wire characteristics, were analysed including their interaction effect.
Statistical significance was set at P<.05.
The null hypothesis was that SV and wire type have no significant
effects on RS.
The constant of elasticity of the NiTi clip was K=12.6N/mm. The slot
height was 0.59mm (0.023), depth varied from 0.46mm (0.018)
to 0.93mm (0.036) according to clip inclination, and clip activa-
tion range was 0.58mm (0.022). Normal forces were estimated for
each wire size as 0.13N for 0.020 wire, 0.39N for 0.022 wire,
1.26N for 0.0160.022 wire and 2.27N for 0.0170.025
wire.
RS decreased with decreasing SV in each sample (Table1 and fig-
ures2-5). Small-size wires produced less RS than the larger ones, in
each configuration studied. Round wires generated less RS than the
rectangular ones as well (Table1).
Apart from the distribution for the 0.0160.022 wires at a SV
of 1105mm/s, data were normally distributed (P>.05), and paramet-
ric tests were performed (Table1). Statistically significant differences
were found in the mean values of RS between all the paired veloci-
ties (P<.001), and between all the wire types as well (P<.05) (Table2).
Representing our results as a logarithmic distribution, we can describe
the different data sets as follows (Figure6):
0.017 0.025 : RS 0.008 ln SV + 0.22, with R2 = 0.99 (1)
[ ( )]
 |
122 SAVOLDI etal.

T A B L E 2 Statistical differences from two-way ANOVA in the

resistance to sliding between different wire types compared at the
same velocity, and between the same wire types at different velocities

Wire
0.020 (round)
0.022 <.001
0.0160.022 <.001
0.0170.025 <.001
0.022 (round)

F I G U R E 3 Tangential force (N) relative to time, at the four 0.020 <.001

different SV of 0.022 specimen 0.0160.022 <.001
0.0170.025 <.001
0.0160.022 (rectangular)
0.020 <.001
0.022 <.001
0.0170.025 .014
0.0170.025 (rectangular)
0.020 <.001
0.022 <.001
0.0160.022 .014
Velocity (mm/s)
1102
1103 <.001
F I G U R E 4 Tangential force (N) relative to time, at the four 110 4
<.001
different SV of 0.0160.022 specimen
1105 <.001
3
110
1102 <.001
4
110 <.001
1105 <.001
4
110
1102 <.001
3
110 <.001
1105 <.001
5
110
1102 <.001
3
110 <.001
1104 <.001

F I G U R E 5 Tangential force (N) relative to time, at the four

different SV of 0.0170.025 specimen The model generally represented the phenomena with adjusted
2
R =0.797, with wire accounting for 73% of the variability (p2=0.734,
P<.001), SV accounting for 58% of the variability (p2=0.224, P<.001)

0.016 0.022 : RS 0.008 ln SV + 0.22, with R2 = 0.97 (2)

[ ( )] and with an interaction effect of 22% between wire type and size
(p2=0.584, P<.001).

0.022 : RS 0.010 ln SV + 0.22, with R2 = 0.99 (3)

[ ( )]

4|DISCUSSION
0.020 : RS 0.002 ln SV + 0.06, with R2 = 0.69 (4)

[ ( )]

Tests settings were chosen to isolate the SV as the sole variable,

where RS (N); SV (mm/s). avoiding multiple variables to act as confounders and to facilitate the
SAVOLDI etal.
F I G U R E 6 Graphical representation of
the correlation between RS and SV using a
logarithmic scale
comparison with previous experiments performed in dry 9,21 and room
temperature conditions.21
The orthodontic tooth movement typically occurs at a
7 9
rate between 1.0mm/mo (4.010 mm/s) and 10.4mm/mo
(4.2106mm/s) in case of reciprocal closure of a diastema be-
tween the central incisors.22 Additionally, the lowest velocity tested
2
by Kusy and Whitley was 1.210 mm/s, and by Yanase etal. was
7
510 mm/s, but authors encountered difficulties because of
the extremely long measurement duration of the run. Taking these
into consideration, the chosen range of velocities was set between
1102mm/s and 1105mm/s.
The results for the smallest-size wire (0.020) had the lowest
agreement with the model (4): this may be attributed to its lower
thickness, leading to an increased freedom of motion inside the slot,
supported by the interactive characteristics of the brackets, almost in-
active with such small displacement.
The proportionality we observed can be generalized for the range
5 2
10 mm/sSV10 mm/s as follows:
[ ( )]
RS ln SV +
where RS (N); SV (mm/s); =constant1; =constant2.
The correlation between the SV and RS has been considered in
other fields besides orthodontics, and such studies frequently have
found a nonlinear logarithmic dependence, especially at very low ve-
locities.10,12-16 Accordingly, it is worth noting that the model proposed
by Dieterich,17 and developed by Ruina,18 is consistent with our loga-
rithmic representation:
( ) ( )
= 0 + A ln vv0 + B ln 0
where =friction coefficient; 0=friction coefficient at Ref; v=veloc-
ity (mm/s); v0=velocity at Ref (mm/s); =time (s); 0=time at Ref (s);
A=constant1; B=constant2. At reference state (Ref) v=v0 and =0.
Despite what has been in some occasions reported,23,24 but in
agreement with other authors considering very low velocities,21 we
did not find any initial frictional peaks during our tests (Figures2-
5). This may be a consequence of the weakness of the normal force
|
123
applied, resulting in a negligible difference between static and dynamic.
In fact, the elasticity of the NiTi clip (K=12.6N/m) generated forces
ranging from about 0.13N (13g) for 0.020 wires, to approximately
2.27N (231g) for 0.0170.025 wires. It should also be considered
that, at such low velocities, the displacement motion could consist of
repeated cycles of sticking and slipping,10 with continuous switching
between the static and dynamic modes of friction, resulting in the
absence of any obvious static-friction peak and subsequent dynamic-
friction plateau.
Furthermore, the third part of the Amontons-
Coulomb friction
model,25 which describes how the magnitude of kinetic friction is in-
dependent of the speed of slippage, seems not to be applicable to
our model. This may be due to the use of very low velocities and small
tangential forces (ranging from 0.028N to 0.133N). In fact, this phe-
nomenon is already known: This third law, ..., is usually not obeyed in
materials science or in orthodontics.3
Kusy and Whitley9 analysed the RS at six velocities (10.0mm/
min, 1.0mm/min, 0.1mm/min, 5102mm/min, 5103mm/min
and 5104mm/min) and found that the coefficient of both static
(5)
and dynamic friction of SS and NiTi wires was independent of the
SV, that the friction of Co-Cr wires decreased with an increasing SV,
while the coefficient of friction for -titanium wires increased with
velocity. However, it is worth considering the fact that their exper-
iments used normal forces of 500 and 5000g, which are far from
the values used clinically, that the slowest velocities were tested
only once or twice, and that they did not use a bracket but a SS
surface.
Yanase etal.21 reported results opposite to ours, with the fric-
(6)
tional resistance decreasing with increasing SV. These experiments
also had some specific features that need to be considered: they used
elastic ligatures so it is possible, especially for very small displace-
ments, that the main phenomenon represented was not the sliding
friction of the archwire on the ligature, but instead the elastic de-
formation of the rubber due to static friction. Moreover, the sam-
ple tested at a SV comparable to the clinical values (107mm/s) was
not measured via the same method used for the others, and this may
 |
124
have caused bias in the comparison. In addition, the measurements
were sampled at intervals with different displacements between the
samples, and those intervals were, in some cases, consistently large
(several days).
Our results show that together with decrease in the SV from
1102mm/s to 1105mm/s, the respective reduction in the RS bracket systems.
was of 29.5% for the 0.020, 67.6% for the 0.022, 47.2% for the
0.0160.022 and 43.6% for the 0.0170.025. These findings
represent a gross reduction of about half of the RS, which is reason-
able to assume to have clinical significance. Regarding wire type, it
is evident that wire size influences the normal force proportionally
to the constant of elasticity of the spring (K, N/mm), represented
by the clip of the bracket, with direct consequences on RS and SV.
2
Beyond this, the interaction effect (22%, p =0.584, P<.001) found
between wire diameter and wire type may result from additional
effects of wire type on contact type, contact area and respective
stress distribution. The simplification of simple sliding of an object
on a single surface may not be applicable with complex loadings,
such as the deflection of a clip with an angular component or even
more complex in case of a ligature, resulting in the wire to keep con-
26
tact with more than one wall. Additionally, a round shape deter-
mines a 2D punctiform (3D linear) contact of the wire with the slot,
and a rectangular shape generates a 2D linear (3D areal) interaction
instead. Furthermore, wire size influences directly the apparent area
of contact and indirectly, that is through the increased deflection
of the clip, the real area of contact with possible effects on RS as
well.27
Absurdly, it might be worth to consider that if treatment times
are shortened, the SV is increased, and this may result in increased
RS. Consequently, attempting to reduce the RS shall be theoretically
achieved reducing the SV (lengthening of the treatment), which is
opposite to the aim of increasing the rate of orthodontic movement.
Thus, careful consideration should be given to the role of RS in rela-
tionship with the orthodontic biomechanics.
Even though the two previously mentioned low-velocity stud-
ies9,21 and few reports of stick-slip phenomena19 considered SV in
RS, the observation of its wakening-strengthening behaviour is not
well documented in orthodontics and only Rossouw etal. specifically
discussed it.20 Our findings are mainly representative of the velocity-
strengthening trend, rather than the immediate velocity-wakening
one, probably because of the constant velocity set by the testing
machine.
Previous in vitro studies claimed reduced RS of self-ligating brack-
ets compared to conventional ones. A difference that appears obvious
if self-ligating brackets apply lower or none normal forces compared
to brackets with ligatures, according to basic mechanical principles.2
Instead, it might be advisable to discuss about the relationship be-
tween force application and control of tooth movement, rather than
the mere RS alone. Additionally, potential anchorage-loss attributed
to high RS of conventional brackets28,29 may be reconsidered in the
light of the present findings, in addition to the notable comments by
Southard etal.30 In fact, the present research suggests to consider ab-
solute values of RS with cautiousness if not performed at velocities
SAVOLDI etal.
compatible with the orthodontic movement. The concepts described
in the present study are applicable to any sliding mechanic inde-
pendently from the bracket system used and may help in the trans-
lational application of in vitro test to clinical situations, and in the
interpretation of clinical trials31-33 and reviews34 comparing different
4.1|Limitations
One limitation of our experiment was related to the accuracy of the
machine, because SV and RS values were very small compared to
the normal range of the instrument. Moreover, the present results
are based on four fixed SV values, and a more finely grained data
set would yield a more precise mathematical description. To achieve
such an increase in precision, two solutions should be considered.
First, increasing the number of fixed velocities tested and second,
a continuous measurement during real-time variations of the SV.
A final technical issue worth recognizing is that the test was only
90s long. Unfortunately, as stated by both by Yanase etal.21 and
Kusy and Whitley,9 significantly increasing the duration of the tests
makes the implementation difficult.
Although several factors such as nonlinear space-time relation-
ships and ageing of materials35 cannot be well replicated in vitro,
the adoption of biologically compatible movement rates may be a
significant step forward to enhance translational application of lab-
oratory results. Besides, an advantage of in vitro studies is the pos-
sibility to control for confounding variables, such as factors related
to the oral environment, which may express intersubject and time-
depending changes.19 Further variability should be accounted for
non-parallel sliding, during which the wire deflects because of the
critical contact angle5 on the three planes of the space, generating
additional frictional forces on the edges of the slot and opposing
physical restraints to the sliding because of the curvature of the
wire. However, changes in the RS due to wire-slot geometrical in-
teractions of non-rigid nature were beyond the scope of the present
study.
5|CONCLUSION
Using SS orthodontic wires in SS self-ligating brackets, for SV close
to clinical movement and small normal forces, lower SV is associated
with lower RS with a logarithmic proportionality (5).
As a consequence, it may be the case that the absolute RS val-
ues provided by most in vitro studies so far could be higher than the
clinical reality. Quantitative evaluations of RS should be carried out at
clinically relevant velocities if aiming at translational application in the
clinical scenario.
AC KNOW L ED G EM ENTS
Authors would like to thank Prof. Francesco Genna for his precious
comments and his help in reviewing the manuscript.
SAVOLDI etal.
CO NFLI CT OF I NTE RE ST
The authors have stated explicitly that there are no conflict of inter-
ests in connection with this article.
REFERENCES
1. Amontons G. De la resistance caus ee dans les machines. Mmoires de
lAcadmie Royale A. 1699;251282.
2. Besancon RM. The Encyclopedia of Physics. 3rd edn. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold Co.; 497499:1985.
3. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket config-
urations and materials. Semin Orthod. 1997;3:166177.
4. Prososki RR, Bagby MD, Erickson LC. Static frictional force and sur-
face roughness of nickel-titanium arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 1991;100:341348.
5. 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.
6. Edwards GD, Davies EH, Jones SP. The ex vivo effect of ligation tech-
nique on the static frictional resistance of stainless steel brackets and
archwires. Br J Orthod. 1995;22:145153.
7. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of orthodontic brack-
ets with bumps in the slot floors and walls: effects of second-order
angulation. Dent Mater. 2004;20:881892.
8. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Resistance to sliding of orthodontic appliances
in the dry and wet states: influence of archwire alloy, interbracket dis-
tance, and bracket engagement. J Biomed Mater Res. 2000;52:797811.
9. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Effects of sliding velocity on the coefficients of
friction in a model orthodontic system. Dent Mater. 1989;5:235240.
10. Muser MH, Urbakh M, Robbins MO. Statistical mechanics of static
and low-velocity kinetic friction. Adv Chem Phys. 2003;126:187272.
11. Reimann P, Evstigneev M. Nonmonotonic velocity dependence of
atomic friction. Phys Rev Lett. 2004;93:230802.
12. Riedo E, Gnecco E, Bennewitz R, Meyer E, Brune H. Interaction po-
tential and hopping dynamics governing sliding friction. Phys Rev Lett.
2003;91:084502.
13. Stark RW, Schitter G, Stemmer A. Velocity dependent friction
laws in contact mode atomic force microscopy. Ultramicroscopy.
2004;100:309317.
14. Sivebaek IM, Samoilov VN, Persson BN. Velocity dependence of fric-
tion of confined hydrocarbons. Langmuir. 2010;26:87218728.
15. Gnecco E, Bennewitz R, Gyalog T, etal. Velocity dependence of
atomic friction. Phys Rev Lett. 2000;84:11721175.
16. Sang Y, Dube M, Grant M. Dependence of friction on roughness,
velocity, and temperature. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys.
2008;77(3 Pt 2):036123.
17. Dieterich JH. Modeling of rock friction 1. Experimental results and
constitutive equations. J Geophys Res. 1979;84:21612168.
18. Ruina A. Slip instability and state variable friction laws. J Geophys Res.
1983;88:1035910370.
19. Olson JE, Liu Y, Nickel JC, Walker MP, Iwasaki LR. Archwire vibration
and stick-slip behavior at the bracket-archwire interface. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142:314322.
20. Rossouw PE, Kamelchuk LS, Kusy RP. A fundamental review of vari-
ables associated with low velocity frictional dynamics. Semin Orthod.
2003;9:223235.
View publication stats
|
125
21. Yanase Y, Ioi H, Nishioka M, Takahashi I. Effects of sliding velocity on
friction: an in vitro study at extremely low sliding velocity approximat-
ing orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod. 2014;84:451458.
22. Tidy DC. Frictional forces in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 1989;96:249254.
23. Redlich M, Mayer Y, Harari D, Lewinstein I. In vitro study of frictional
forces during sliding mechanics of reduced-friction brackets. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:6973.
24. Baccetti T, Franchi L. Friction produced by types of elastomeric liga-
tures in treatment mechanics with the preadjusted appliance. Angle
Orthod. 2006;76:211216.
25. Jastrzebski ZD. The Nature and Properties of Engineering Materials. 2nd
edn. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 182185:1976.
26. Rajan V, Burridge R, Schwartz J. Dynamics of a rigid body in fric-
tional contact with rigid walls: motion in two dimensions. Robotics
and Automation Proceedings 1987 IEEE International Conference.
1987;4:671677.
27. Parker RC, Hatch D. The static coefficient of friction and the area of
contact. Proc Phys Soc London, Sect B. 1950;63:185197.
28. Braun S, Bluestein M, Moore BK, Benson G. Friction in perspective.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115:619627.
29. Taylor NG, Ison K. Frictional resistance between orthodon-
tic brackets and archwires in the buccal segments. Angle Orthod.
1996;66:215222.
30. Southard TE, Marshall SD, Grosland NM. Friction does not increase an-
chorage loading. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131:412414.
31. Pandis N, Polychronopoulou A, Eliades T. Active or passive self-
ligating brackets? A randomized controlled trial of comparative effi-
ciency in resolving maxillary anterior crowding in adolescents. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:12 e1e6. discussion 12-3.
32. Songra G, Clover M, Atack NE, etal. Comparative assessment of
alignment efficiency and space closure of active and passive self-
ligating vs conventional appliances in adolescents: a single-center
randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2014;145:569578.
33. Ireland AJ, Songra G, Clover M, Atack NE, Sherriff M, Sandy JR.
Effect of gender and Frankfort mandibular plane angle on orthodon-
tic space closure: a randomized controlled trial. Orthod Craniofac Res.
2016;19:7482.
34. Papageorgiou SN, Konstantinidis I, Papadopoulou K, Jager A, Bourauel
C. Clinical effects of pre-adjusted edgewise orthodontic brackets: a
systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36:350363.
35. Eliades T, Bourauel C. Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the
picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 2005;127:403412.
How to cite this article: Savoldi F, Visconti L, Dalessandri D,
etal. In vitro evaluation of the influence of velocity on sliding
resistance of stainless steel arch wires in a self-ligating
orthodontic bracket. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017;20:119125.
https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12156