RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,

BANGALORE, KARNATAKA
ANNEXURE II
PROFORMA FOR REGISTRATION OF SUBJECTS FOR DISSERTATION

1.

Name of the candidate and

address

Dr. TEJESH KUMAR.S.P

POST GRADUATE STUDENT
DEPARTMENT OF ORTHODONTICS AND
DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS,
GOVRNMENT DENTAL COLLEGE AND
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
BANGALORE-560002

2.

Name of the Institution

GOVERNMENT

DENTAL

COLLEGE

AND

RESEARCH INSTITUTE
BANGALORE- 560002
3.

Course of the study and subject

MASTER OF DENTAL SURGERY

ORTHODONTICS

AND

DENTOFACIAL

ORTHOPEDICS
4.

Date of Admission to course

5.

Title of the Topic:

30.06.2008

AN IN-VITRO EVALUATION OF FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE OF PREADJUSTED

EDGEWISE ESTHETIC BRACKETS: CERAMIC BRACKETS WITH METAL SLOT,
SELF LIGATING CERAMIC BRACKETS USING DIFFERENT ARCHWIRES.

6.

BRIEF RESUME OF INTENDED WORK

6.1. Need for the study:
Stainless steel brackets are routinely used in orthodontic treatment. Ceramic brackets
evolved in orthodontic treatment to fulfill the esthetic requirements. But these stainless steel
brackets and conventional ceramic brackets that are used have high frictional resistance
between the bracket and archwire. Sliding mechanics is a major method of tooth movement
wherein friction is an important factor. When using these mechanics it is important to have
an estimate of frictional resistance of different bracketarchwire combination because the
applied force must overcome the frictional force before tooth movement can occur1.
Therefore, it is essential to understand the impact of friction between the bracket and the
wire so that the proper force can be applied to obtain adequate dental movement and
optimum biologic tissue response2. Hence the esthetic ceramic brackets with metal slot,
ceramic self ligating bracket and stainless steel brackets are evaluated for frictional
resistance with different archwires like nickel-titanium, stainless steel, beta-titanium and
epoxy coated esthetic archwires used in orthodontic treatment.

6.2. Review of literature:

1. Studies were carried out to compare the static and kinetic frictional resistance of ceramic
bracket with a metal lined slot, ceramic bracket with contoured base and stainless steel
bracket using stainless steel, nickel-titanium, and beta-titanium archwires. Brackets with
metal slots and rounded base slots had low frictional resistance.
2. Studies were carried out to compare the frictional forces generated by ceramic brackets,
ceramic brackets with metal reinforced slot and stainless steel brackets in combination with
stainless steel, nickel-titanium, and beta-titanium archwires. Stainless steel bracket, ceramic

bracket with a metal reinforced slot, and conventional ceramic bracket had frictional force
values in increasing order. The beta-titanium wire showed the highest frictional force value,
followed by the nickel-titanium and the stainless steel archwires.
3. Studies were carried out to evaluate the frictional resistance among the composite, ceramic,
and metal brackets with stainless steel, nickel-titanium, and beta-titanium archwires. The
recently introduced composite brackets were found to offer lower frictional resistance than the
ceramic and stainless steel brackets, regardless of the wire size, wire alloy, and type of
ligation. The wire alloy with the least friction was stainless steel, followed by beta-titanium
and nickel-titanium.
4. Studies were carried out to compare the level of frictional resistance generated between
stainless steel self-ligating brackets, polycarbonate self-ligating brackets and conventional
stainless steel brackets and three different orthodontic archwire alloys such as stainless steel
nickel-titanium and beta-titanium. Stainless steel self-ligating brackets generated significantly
lower frictional forces than both conventional stainless steel and polycarbonate self-ligating
brackets, which showed no significant differences between them. Beta-titanium archwires had
higher frictional resistances than stainless steel and nickel-titanium archwires. No significant
differences were found between stainless steel and nickel-titanium archwires.
5. Studies were carried out to compare frictional properties of self-ligating aesthetic glassfilled nickel-free polycrystalline resin bracket and self-ligating aesthetic polymer bracket and
with those of four conventionally ligated aesthetic brackets. Friction was tested with different
wire dimensions and qualities; stainless steel wire 0.0170.025 inches and 0.0190.025
inches and beta-titanium 0.019 0.025 inches. The results showed glass-filled nickel-free
polycrystalline resin brackets had lowest frictional forces for all wire dimensions.
6.3. Objectives of the study:
3

1. An in vitro evaluation of the frictional resistance among preadjusted edgewise brackets

namely stainless steel, esthetic ceramic brackets with metal slot and ceramic self ligating
brackets having 0.022 0.028 inches slot, using 0.019 0.025 inches archwires namely nickel
titanium, stainless steel, beta titanium and epoxy coated esthetic archwire.

7.

MATERIAL & METHODS:

7.1. Source of data:
Different commercially available unused preadjusted edgewise stainless steel brackets,
ceramic bracket with metal slot and ceramic self ligating brackets will be collected and
divided into groups. Nickel titanium archwire, stainless steel archwire, beta titanium archwire
and epoxy coated esthetic archwire are also used.
7.2. Method of Collection of Data:
Method: Three types of preadjusted edgewise bracket system with 0.022 0.028 inches
slot are taken such as 1.Ceramic bracket with metal slot, 2.Ceramic self ligating bracket and
3.Stainless steel bracket. Four types of archwires with 50 millimeters length each and with
0.019 0.025 inches dimension are taken, such as 1.Nickel titanium archwire, 2.Stainless
steel archwire, 3.Beta titanium archwire and 4.Epoxy coated esthetic archwire. Each bracket
is bonded on a jig and standardized ligation is done for conventional brackets using
conventional elastomeric ligation. Each bracket-archwire combination is tested for frictional
resistance in dry state at room temperature ten times using a Universal testing machine
(Instron). All the data collected will be subjected to statistical analysis using ANOVA, post
Hoc test using Bonferroni method.
7.3. Does the study require any investigation or interventions to be conducted on
patients or other humans or other animals?
4

No

7.4. Has ethical clearance been obtained from your institution in case of 7.3?
Not applicable

8.

List of References:
1. Kapur Wadhwa R, Kwon HK, Close JM. Frictional resistance of different bracket-wire
combinations. Aust Orthod J. 2004 May; 20(1): 25-30.
2. Nishio C, da Motta AF, Elias CN, Mucha JN. In vitro evaluation of frictional forces
between archwires and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004; 125: 56-64.
3. Bazakidou E , Nanda RS , Duncanson MG Jr , Sinha P. Evaluation of frictional resistance
in esthetic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997; 112:138-44.
4. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Ricciardi A, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation
of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire
combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124: 395402.
5. Reicheneder CA, Baumert U, Gedrange T, Proff P, Faltermeier A, Muessig D. Frictional
properties of aesthetic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29: 359365.

9.

Signature of Candidate

This study has not been undertaken in this department

10.

Remarks of the Guide

11.

Name and Designation of

11.1. Guide

previously.

Dr. PADMINI.M.N
Assistant Professor
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Government Dental College, Bangalore

11.2. Signature

11.3. Co-Guide

Dr. KUMARSWAMY.K.M
Lecturer
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Government Dental College, Bangalore

11.4. Signature

11.5.Head of the Department

Dr. SHASHIKALA KUMARI .V.

Professor and Head,
Department of Orthodontics And Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Government Dental College,
Bangalore-560002

11.6. Signature

12.

12.1.Remarks of the Principal / Dean cum Director

12.2. Signature: