Effect of bracket type on halitosis,periodontal status,and microbial colonization

Objective: To determine the effect of bracket type on halitosis, periodontal status, and microbial colonization.Materials and Methods:Forty-six patients scheduled for fixed orthodontic treatment (age 11–16 years) were selected from the orthodontic department of Suleyman Demirel University. Patients were divided into two groups with random distribution of brackets; 23 patients were treated with self-ligating brackets (group SLBs), the others with conventional brackets (group CBs). Halitosis measurements and periodontal and microbial records were obtained before the placement of brackets (T0), 1 week later (T1), and 5 weeks after bonding (T2). Periodontal parameters, including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing index (BOP), were obtained from all the bonded teeth. Halitosis measurements were performed at the same time. Microbial samples were obtained from the buccal surfaces of all the bonded teeth. Data were analyzed by using a repeated-measurement analysis of variance test for the comparison of parameters between groups and times.Results:Periodontal parameters and halitosis results were higher in the CBs group than in the SLBs group (P < .05). In the SLBs group, halitosis and BOP values revealed no pronounced changes between T1 and T2 (P > .05). Intra- and intergroup comparisons showed that there were no statistically significant differences for microbial colonization between all the time intervals (P > .05).Conclusion:Bracket type has an effect on halitosis and periodontal status. Therefore, self-ligating brackets may be advised in order to prevent patients from developing halitosis and to increase the likelihood of good oral hygiene during orthodontic treatment.     

Self-ligating vs conventional brackets as perceived by orthodontists

Objective:To determine if there are significant clinical differences between self-ligating brackets (SLB) and conventional brackets (CB) during orthodontic treatment, as perceived by orthodontists.Materials and Methods:A survey was developed and distributed to evaluate how SLB compare to CB in terms of orthodontists'' perceptions (n  =  430).Results:SLB were preferred during the initial stage of treatment based on the shorter adjustment appointments and faster initial treatment progress they provided (P < .0001). On the other hand, practitioners preferred CB during the finishing and detailing stages of treatment (P < .0001). CB were also preferred over SLB because they were cheaper and resulted in fewer emergency appointments.Conclusions:The orthodontists'' preference was significantly influenced by (1) the proportion of patients treated with SLB (P < .0001), (2) the number of cases it took them to become accustomed to SLB (P < .0001), and (3) the average appointment intervals associated with SLB (P < .0001).     

Effect of the bracket types on microbial colonization and periodontal status

Objective:To evaluate the effect of different bracket types on the levels of Streptococcus mutans (SM) and Lactobacillus (LB) in saliva, in plaque, and on the periodontal condition.Materials and Methods:Forty patients aged 14 to 16 years, who had Angle Class I malocclusion with minimal crowding, were nonsmokers, were without systematic disease, and did not use antibiotics or oral mouth rinses during the 3-month period before the study were randomly selected. The patients were subdivided into two groups with random allocation of bracket type: conventional brackets (CB; Avex Mx, OPAL orth.) with steel wire ligature or self-ligating brackets (SLB; F1000, Leone S.p.A.). Microbial and periodontal records were obtained before bonding (T₁) and 1 month after bonding (T₂). Microbial samples were collected from the stimulated saliva and the plaque from the labial surfaces of the upper and lower lateral incisors. To estimate the number of colony-forming units of SM and LB, Dentocult SM and LB kits were used. The plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and pocket depth (PD) values were recorded to evaluate the periodontal condition. Paired t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the groups statistically.Results:No significant differences occurred in SM or LB colonization between the groups. In the SLB group, PI, GI, and PD values increased significantly (P < .05). A greater increase was found in PD value in the SLB group (0.98 mm) compared with the CB group (0.04 mm; P < .05).Conclusions:The F1000 SLB do not have an advantage over Avex Mx CB with respect to periodontal status and colonization of SM and LB.     

Speech performance and oral impairments with lingual and labial orthodontic appliances in the first stage of fixed treatment: A randomized controlled trial

Objectives:To compare (1) speech performance based on an auditive analysis and sonagraphy and (2) levels of oral impairment between fixed lingual and labial orthodontic appliances.Materials and Methods:Thirty-four patients with Class I division 1 malocclusion and moderate crowding of upper teeth were distributed randomly into two groups. Seventeen patients in group A (mean age: 20.6 years; standard deviation [SD]: 2.9 years) were treated with fixed lingual appliances (Stealth®, AO, Sheboygan, Wisc), whereas 17 patients in group B (mean age: 21.8 years; SD: 3.3 years) were treated with conventional fixed labial appliances. Speech performance was tested using spectrographic analysis of fricative /s/ sound before, immediately after (T1), 1 month after, and 3 months after bracket placement. The levels of oral impairment were assessed using standardized questionnaires.Results:A significant deterioration in articulation was recorded at all assessment times in group A but only at T1 in group B. Significant intergroup differences were recorded at all assessment times (P < .001). Speech difficulties were significantly higher in the lingual brackets group after 1 month of bracket placement (P < .001). Soft tissue irritation and chewing difficulty were significantly higher in the lingual appliance group after 24 hours of bracket placement (P < .001).Conclusions:The lingual appliance is more problematic than the labial one in terms of speech articulation. Although patients with both appliances suffered from different degrees of oral impairment, patients with lingual appliances had more untoward effects, particularly during the first month of treatment.     

Effects of third-order torque on frictional force of self-ligating brackets

Objective:To investigate the effects of third-order torque on frictional properties of self-ligating brackets (SLBs).Materials and Methods:Three SLBs (two passive and one active) and three archwires (0.016 × 0.022-inch nickel-titanium, and 0.017 × 0.025-inch and 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel) were used. Static friction was measured by drawing archwires though bracket slots with four torque levels (0°, 10°, 20°, 30°), using a mechanical testing machine (n  =  10). A conventional stainless-steel bracket was used for comparison. Results were subjected to Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests. Contact between the bracket and wire was studied using a scanning electron microscope.Results:In most bracket-wire combinations, increasing the torque produced a significant increase in static friction. Most SLB-wire combinations at all torques produced less friction than that from the conventional bracket. Active-type SLB-wire combinations showed higher friction than that from passive-type SLB-wire combinations in most conditions. When increasing the torque, more contact between the wall of a bracket slot and the edge of a wire was observed for all bracket types.Conclusions:Increasing torque when using SLBs causes an increase in friction, since contact between the bracket slot wall and the wire edge becomes greater; the design of brackets influences static friction.     

The effect of two different bracket types on the salivary levels of S mutans and S sobrinus in the early phase of orthodontic treatment

Objective:To determine the difference in the levels of Streptococcus mutans and S sobrinus in stimulated saliva in orthodontic patients with different bracket types (stainless steel and esthetic brackets) using polymerase chain reaction and cultivation method.Materials and Methods:Thirty-two patients, aged 13 to 30 years, were selected following these criteria: 1) orthodontic treatment indication, 2) systemic health, and 3) no tobacco and antibiotic consummation for three months prior to the commencement of the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the bracket type; 16 patients formed the conventional bracket group (stainless steel brackets), and 16 patients formed the esthetic bracket group (plastic brackets). The levels of S mutans and S sobrinus in stimulated whole saliva samples were collected prior to fixed orthodontic appliance placement (T1) and 12 weeks after placement (T2), as were the Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surface Index (DMFS) and Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified (OHI-S). Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis.Results:Statistical analysis (chi-square test) showed no difference in S mutans and S sobrinus counts among patients with different brackets at either T1 or T2. There was no difference in total bacteria counts after fixed orthodontic appliance placement.Conclusion:The number of colony-forming units of S mutans and S sobrinus in stimulated saliva samples does not seem to be significantly different between patients with stainless steel brackets and patients with plastic brackets.     

In vitro frictional forces generated by three different ligation methods

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference between the frictional forces produced by a passive self-ligating bracket (SLB) in vitro and a conventional bracket (CB) used with two types of elastomeric ligatures. MATERIALS AND METHOD: The brackets, wires and ligation methods used in vitro were a passive SLB and a CB used with two types of elastomeric ligatures (conventional elastomeric ligature [CEL] and unconventional elastomeric ligatures [UEL]). The bracket ligation systems were tested with two types of wires (0.014' super elastic nickel titanium wire and 0.019' x 0.025' stainless steel wire). Resistance to sliding of the bracket/wire/ligature systems was measured with an experimental model mounted on the crosshead of an Instron testing machine with a 10 N load cell. Each sample was tested 10 consecutive times under a dry state. RESULTS: Frictional forces close to 0 g were recorded in all tests with SLB and in all tests with UEL on CB with both wire types. Resistance to sliding increased significantly (87-177 g) (P < .05) when CEL on CB was used with both wires. CONCLUSION: UELs may represent a valid alternative to passive SLBs for low-friction biomechanics.     

Clinical bond failure rates of adhesive precoated self-ligating brackets using a self-etching primer

Objective:To comparatively assess the failure rate of adhesive precoated (APC) self-ligating metal brackets bonded with two different enamel surface preparation techniques: self-etching primer (SEP) and conventional two-step etch and primer method (CM).Materials and Methods:Fifty-seven patients with complete permanent dentition were included in this study. A total of 1140 APC self-ligating brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded using a split-mouth design. For each patient, SEP (Transbond Plus SEP, 3M Unitek) and CM (37% phosphoric acid) were used in alternate quadrants. All brackets were bonded by the same investigator after pumicing and rinsing of all of the teeth. The number, site, and date of first-time bracket failures were monitored throughout orthodontic treatment (mean, 22 months). The survival rates of the brackets were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests (P < .05). The adhesive remnant index was used to determine the bond failure interface.Results:The bond failure rates were 2.97% and 2.18% for the CM and SEP, respectively. No statistically significant difference in failure rates was found between the groups. The bond failure sites were predominantly at the enamel-adhesive interface in both groups.Conclusion:This long-term in vivo study showed that the combined use of SEP and the APC bracket system can be used effectively for bonding brackets after pumicing the enamel surfaces in clinical orthodontics.     

Post-gel shrinkage,elastic modulus,and stress generated by orthodontic adhesives

Objectives:To measure post-gel shrinkage, elastic modulus, and flexural strength of orthodontic adhesives and to predict shrinkage stress using finite element analysis (FEA).Materials and Methods:The following 6 orthodontic adhesives were tested: Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), Transbond Plus Color Change (3M Unitek), Greengloo (Ormco, Brea, Calif), Ortho Connect (GC America, Alsip, Ill), Trulock (RMO, Denver, Colo), GoTo (Reliance, Itasca, Ill). Post-gel shrinkage was measured using a biaxial strain gauge during light curing. Elastic modulus and flexural strength were measured with a 4-point bending test. Analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls post hoc tests were used to compare the shrinkage, elastic modulus, and flexural strengths among the materials (α = .05). Shrinkage stresses caused by the post-gel shrinkage and elastic modulus values were calculated using a cross-sectional FEA of a metallic bracket bonded to an incisor.Results:Properties were highly different among the adhesives (P ≤ .0001). Transbond XT (0.38 ± 0.09 percent volumetric contraction) and GoTo (0.42 ± 0.05 percent volumetric contraction) had the lowest post-gel shrinkage; Transbond Plus Color Change had the highest (0.84 ± 0.08 percent volumetric contraction). OrthoConnect (6.8 ± 0.6 gigapascals) had the lowest elastic modulus; GoTo (28.3 ± 3.1 gigapascals) had the highest. Trulock (64.1 ± 8.2 megapascals) had the lowest flexural strength; Greengloo (139.1 ± 20.7 megapascals) had the highest. FEA showed that the highest shrinkage stresses were generated with Transbond Plus Color Change and the lowest with OrthoConnect.Conclusions:Post-gel shrinkage of orthodontic adhesives was comparable with restorative composites, which are known to create shrinkage stresses in restored teeth. FEA indicated that this shrinkage creates stresses in the adhesive and in the enamel around the brackets.     

Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets: A randomized clinical trial

Objective:To measure space closure during the retraction of upper permanent canines with self-ligating and conventional brackets.Materials and Methods:Fifteen patients who required maxillary canine retraction into first premolar extraction sites as part of their orthodontic treatment completed this study. In a random split-mouth design, the retraction of upper canines was performed using an elastomeric chain with 150 g of force. The evaluations were performed in dental casts (T0, initial; T1, 4 weeks; T2, 8 weeks; T3, 12 weeks). The amount of movement and the rotation of the canines as well as anchorage loss of the upper first molars were evaluated.Results:There was no difference between self-ligating and conventional brackets regarding the distal movement of upper canines and mesial movement of first molars (P > .05). Rotation of the upper canines was minimized with self-ligating brackets (P < .05).Conclusion:Distal movement of the upper canines and anchorage loss of the first molars were similar with both conventional and self-ligating brackets. Rotation of the upper canines during sliding mechanics was minimized with self-ligating brackets.     

A novel biomimetic orthodontic bonding agent helps prevent white spot lesions adjacent to brackets

Objective:To compare changes in enamel microhardness adjacent to orthodontic brackets after using bonding agents containing various compositions of bioactive glass compared to a traditional resin adhesive following a simulated caries challenge.Materials and Methods:Extracted human third molars (n  =  10 per group) had orthodontic brackets bonded using one of four novel bioactive glass (BAG)-containing orthodontic bonding agents (BAG-Bonds) or commercially available Transbond-XT. The four new adhesives contained BAG in varying percentages incorporated into a traditional resin monomer mixture. Teeth were cycled through low-pH demineralizing and physiologic-pH remineralizing solutions once each day over 14 days. Microhardness was measured on longitudinal sections of the teeth 100, 200, and 300 µm from the bracket edge and beneath the brackets, at depths of 25 to 200 µm from the enamel surface. Normalized hardness values were compared using three-way analysis of variance.Results:Significantly less reduction in enamel microhardness was found with the experimental adhesives at depths of 25 and 50 µm at all distances from the bracket edge. In all groups, there were no significant changes in enamel microhardness past 125-µm depth. Results varied with the different BAG-Bonds, with 81BAG-Bond showing the smallest decrease in enamel microhardness.Conclusions:The BAG-Bonds tested in this study showed a reduction in the amount of superficial enamel softening surrounding orthodontic brackets compared to a traditional bonding agent. The results indicate that clinically, BAG-Bonds may aid in maintaining enamel surface hardness, therefore helping prevent white spot lesions adjacent to orthodontic brackets.     

Corticotomy-assisted maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage and Class III elastics

Objective:To analyze the treatment effects of corticotomy-assisted maxillary protraction with skeletal anchorage and Class III elastics in patients with Class III malocclusions.Materials and Methods:The study group consisted of 19 patients with a mean age of 13.12 ± 1.28 years. Initially, patients were monitored for 5 months before treatment to evaluate growth changes. Changes during control, protraction and fixed orthodontic treatment periods were compared with the cephalometric radiographs taken initially, before protraction, after protraction, and after fixed orthodontic treatment. Treatment outcomes also were compared with the growth effects.Results:Sagittal measurements of maxilla showed significant improvements (3.59 ± 1.32 mm) during the protraction period (3.85 ± 1.12 months) whereas no significant changes were seen during the control period. Upper and lower incisor inclinations were increased, and the upper occlusal plane angle showed significant counterclockwise rotation during protraction. Significant soft-tissue changes also reflected the underlying skeletal changes. Maxillary advancement was stable during fixed orthodontic treatment.Conclusion:Compared with control period of the patients, this protocol produced significant improvements in skeletal and soft-tissue structures.     

Dimensional accuracy of ceramic self-ligating brackets and estimates of theoretical torsional play

Objective:To ascertain the dimensional accuracies of some commonly used ceramic self-ligation brackets and the amount of torsional play in various bracket–archwire combinations.Materials and Methods:Four types of 0.022-inch slot ceramic self-ligating brackets (upper right central incisor), three types of 0.018-inch ceramic self-ligating brackets (upper right central incisor), and three types of rectangular archwires (0.016 × 0.022-inch beta-titanium [TMA] (Ormco, Orange, Calif), 0.016 × 0.022-inch stainless steel [SS] (Ortho Technology, Tampa, Fla), and 0.019 × 0.025-inch SS (Ortho Technology)) were measured using a stereomicroscope to determine slot widths and wire cross-sectional dimensions. The mean acquired dimensions of the brackets and wires were applied to an equation devised by Meling to estimate torsional play angle (γ).Results:In all bracket systems, the slot tops were significantly wider than the slot bases (P < .001), yielding a divergent slot profile. Clarity-SLs (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) showed the greatest divergence among the 0.022-inch brackets, and Clippy-Cs (Tomy, Futaba, Fukushima, Japan) among the 0.018-inch brackets. The Damon Clear (Ormco) bracket had the smallest dimensional error (0.542%), whereas the 0.022-inch Empower Clear (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis) bracket had the largest (3.585%).Conclusions:The largest amount of theoretical play is observed using the Empower Clear (American Orthodontics) 0.022-inch bracket combined with the 0.016 × 0.022-inch TMA wire (Ormco), whereas the least amount occurs using the 0.018 Clippy-C (Tomy) combined with 0.016 × 0.022-inch SS wire (Ortho Technology).     

Three-dimensional effects of the mini-implant–anchored Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device: A randomized controlled trial

Objective:To detect three-dimensionally the effects of using mini-implant anchorage with the Forsus Fatigue Resistant Device (FFRD).Materials and Methods:The sample comprised 43 skeletal Class II females with deficient mandibles. They were randomly allocated into three groups: 16 patients (13.25 ± 1.12 years) received FFRD alone (Forsus group), 15 subjects (13.07 ± 1.41 years) received FFRD and mini-implants (FMI group), and 12 subjects (12.71 ± 1.44 years) were in the untreated control group. Three-dimensional analyses of cone beam computed tomographic images were completed, and the data were statistically analyzed.Results:Class I relationship and overjet correction were achieved in 88% of the cases. None of the two treatment groups showed significant mandibular skeletal effects. In the FMI group, significant headgear effect, decrease in maxillary width, and increase in the lower facial height were noted. In the FMI group, retroclination of maxillary incisors and distalization of maxillary molars were significantly higher. Proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors were significantly greater in the Forsus group.Conclusions:FFRD resulted in Class II correction mainly through dentoalveolar effects and with minimal skeletal effects. Utilization of mini-implant anchorage effectively reduced the unfavorable proclination and intrusion of mandibular incisors but did not produce additional skeletal effects.     

Clinical and microbiological parameters in patients with self-ligating and conventional brackets during early phase of orthodontic treatment

Objective:To determine the effect of different bracket designs (conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets) on periodontal clinical parameters and periodontal pathogens in subgingival plaque.Material and Methods:The following inclusion criteria were used: requirement of orthodontic treatment plan starting with alignment and leveling, good general health, healthy periodontium, no antibiotic therapy in the previous 6 months before the beginning of the study, and no smoking. The study sample totaled 38 patients (13 male, 25 female; mean age, 14.6 ± 2.0 years). Patients were divided into two groups with random distribution of brackets. Recording of clinical parameters was done before the placement of the orthodontic appliance (T0) and at 6 weeks (T1), 12 weeks (T2), and 18 weeks (T3) after full bonding of orthodontic appliances. Periodontal pathogens of subgingival microflora were detected at T3 using a commercially available polymerase chain reaction test (micro-Dent test) that contains probes for Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythia, and Treponema denticola.Results:There was a statistically significant higher prevalence of A actinomycetemcomitans in patients with conventional brackets than in patients with self-ligating brackets, but there was no statistically significant difference for other putative periodontal pathogens. The two different types of brackets did not show statistically significant differences in periodontal clinical parameters.Conclusion:Bracket design does not seem to have a strong influence on periodontal clinical parameters and periodontal pathogens in subgingival plaque. The correlation between some periodontal pathogens and clinical periodontal parameters was weak.     

Comparative study of root resorption of maxillary incisors in patients treated with lingual and buccal orthodontics

Objective:To compare the magnitude of external apical root resorption (EARR) of maxillary incisors in patients with mild to moderate anterior crowding, treated with lingual and conventional (labial) orthodontics.Materials and Methods:The sample comprised 40 patients divided into two groups: lingual (20 patients) and conventional buccal brackets (20 patients). Patient ages ranged from 11 to 45 years, and the study included 12 men and 28 women. Apical root resorption was measured from periapical radiographs obtained at the beginning of treatment (T1) and at the end of the leveling phase (T2). Periapical radiographs were scanned and transferred to the CorelDraw X7 image-processing program, in which measurements of root lengths were performed. For intragroup and intergroup comparisons between the T1 and T2 phases, paired and independent t-tests, respectively, were used at 5% significance.Results:There was significant apical root resorption for all teeth evaluated; the magnitude of the EARR (T2−T1) ranged from −0.35 mm to −0.63 mm in the lingual group, and from −0.66 mm to −0.85 mm in the conventional group. Although there was an intergroup variation in the magnitude of EARR observed, no statistically significant differences were found. Neither group presented any teeth with resorption ≥1 mm.Conclusions:The magnitude of apical root resorption in maxillary incisors in patients with anterior crowding was similar regardless of orthodontic technique, lingual or conventional. Both techniques resulting in an apical rounding considered clinically insignificant.     

Differences in psychological traits between lingual and labial orthodontic patients: Perfectionism,body image,and the impact of dental esthetics

Objective:To examine some of the patients'' psychological traits in relation to their levels of perfectionism and their body image, and to discover whether these differ between lingual and labial orthodontic patients.Materials and Methods:A cross-sectional study was designed with a consecutive sample of 80 patients attending a private orthodontic office. Three questionnaires were used to assess the patients'' body image and level of perfectionism. The mean age was 33 years. The men numbered 32 and the women 48. The validated Spanish version of the Psychosocial Impact of Dental Aesthetic Questionnaire (PIDAQ) was used to assess the psychosocial impact of their dental esthetics. The Multidimensional Perfectionism Scale (MPS) was used to assess how perfectionist the patients were. A version of the Multidimensional Body-Self Relations Questionnaire (MBSRQ) was used for assessment of their body image. Student''s t-test was used to compare the means and 95% confidence intervals (P < .05), and a logistic regression model was used for multivariate analysis.Results:The PIDAQ (55.4 vs 60, P  =  .218) and MBSRQ (128.7 vs 125.9, P  =  .523) results of the patients who chose lingual orthodontics did not differ significantly from those who opted for labial orthodontics. However, the MPS scores of the lingual orthodontic patients were significantly higher (95.9 vs 86.3, P  =  .044), and high social class, over 30 years of age, and perfectionist traits were significant independent variables in this group.Conclusions:This pilot study may indicate that lingual orthodontic patients are more perfectionists than labial orthodontic patients.     

Quantitative Analysis of Biofilm Formation On Labial and Lingual Bracket Surfaces

ObjectivesTo evaluate and compare the biofilm formation between labial and lingual orthodontic brackets.Materials and MethodsTwenty patients with a mean age of 24 ± 8.8 who had received labial or lingual orthodontic treatment were enrolled in the study. Biofilm formation on 80 brackets was analyzed quantitatively with the Rutherford backscattering detection method. Five micrographs were obtained per bracket with views from the vestibule/lingual, mesial, distal, gingival, and occlusal aspects. Quantitative analysis was carried out with surface analysis software (ImageJ 1.48). Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05).ResultsTotal biofilm formation was 41.56% (min 29.43% to max 48.76%) on lingual brackets and 26.52% (min 21.61% to max 32.71%) on labial brackets. Differences between the two groups were found to be significant. No difference was observed in intraoral location. The biofilm accumulation was mostly located on gingival, mesial, and distal surfaces for both groups.ConclusionsThe biofilm accumulation on lingual orthodontic therapy was found to be more than labial orthodontic therapy.     

Comparison of static friction with self-ligating,modified slot design and conventional brackets

Objective

To compare the static frictional forces generated at the bracket/wire interface of stainless steel brackets with different geometries and angulations, combined with orthodontic wires of different diameters.

Material and Methods

The frictional forces were evaluated with three different types of metal brackets: a passive self-ligating (SmartClip^TM, 3M/Unitek, Monrovia, USA), with a modified slot design (Mini Uni Twin^TM, 3M/Unitek, Monrovia, USA) and conventional (Kirium, Abzil, São José do Rio Preto, Brazil). The samples were mounted in a testing device with three different angulations and tested with 0.014" and 0.018" stainless steel wires (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, USA). The static frictional force was measured using a universal testing machine (DL 500, EMIC^®, São José dos Pinhais, Brazil) with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Statistical analysis was performed by two-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni''s post hoc test.

Results

There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in static friction when the three types of brackets were tested with the same wire size. The wire diameter influenced friction only when the brackets had a 10º angulation (p<0.05). The angulation influenced friction (p<0.05) when the brackets were associated with a 0.018" wire.

Conclusion

Brackets with a modified slot design showed intermediate static frictional force values between the conventional and self-ligating brackets tested.