Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Purpose: The aim of this study was to compare classical friction (FR) in passive self-ligating brackets (P-SLBs), active self-ligating brackets (A-SLBs) and a traditional twin bracket, in vitro, and to identify the point of initiation of bracket-archwire engagement.
Methods: Nine bracket systems of 0.022 in slot size were FR tested: 5 P‑SLB systems; 4 A‑SLB systems; and a control group of twin brackets with elastomeric ligatures. Single upper right central incisor brackets were mounted on a custom metal fixture for testing. Straight sections of various round and rectangular nickel-titanium (NiTi) archwires (0.016, 0.018, 0.018 × 0.018, 0.020 × 0.020, 0.016 × 0.022, 0.017 × 0.025, 0.019 × 0.025, and 0.021 × 0.025 in) were ligated to the bracket and peak static FR (cN) was measured with an Instron Universal Testing Machine. Ten unique tests each utilizing a new bracket and new archwire were conducted for each group in the dry state.
Results: FR was significantly different between control, P‑SLB and A‑SLB systems (P < 0.001). P‑SLB groups displayed no significant differences in FR between each other, regardless of archwire size. A‑SLB groups did exhibit significant differences in FR between each other depending on both the bracket system and archwire size. Each A‑SLB system tested possessed a distinctly different pattern of initiation of bracket-archwire engagement.
Conclusions: FR between the archwire and bracket slot differs between P‑SLB and A‑SLB systems, with a distinct pattern of FR and bracket-archwire engagement for each A‑SLB system. Understanding the different bracket-wire interactions of SLB systems should help orthodontic clinicians to plan effective and efficient biomechanics with the bracket system of their choice.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00056-021-00361-8 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!