ORIGINAL ARTICLE

In vitro study of frictional forces during sliding

mechanics of “reduced-friction” brackets
Meir Redlich, DMD, MSc, PhD,a Yaniv Mayer, DMD,b Doron Harari, DMD,c and
Israel Lewinstein, DMD, PhDd
Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, Israel

This study evaluated the static friction force created between archwires and “reduced-friction” brackets
during sliding mechanics. Five different brands of “reduced-friction” brackets were used: group A: NuEdge
(TP Orthodontics, LaPorte, Ind); group B: Discovery (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany); group C: Synergy
(Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, Colo); group D: Friction Free (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan,
Wis); and group E: TIME, a self-ligating bracket (American Orthodontics). Group F (Omni Arch, GAC
International, Bohemia, NY) served as a control group. Each group contained 75 stainless steel brackets with
.022 ⫻ .028-in slots. Three stainless steel wires were tested: .018, .018 ⫻ .025, and .019 ⫻ .025 in. To take
second-order bends into account, the brackets were set at either 5° or 10° to the wires. Each bracket was
set in a special device, which was placed on the base of the testing machine. A wire ligated to the bracket
was attached to the crosshead of the machine and pulled at a speed of 10 mm/min for a distance of 5 mm.
Significant differences were found in the static friction forces among the different groups. Group D (Friction
Free) showed the lowest and group E (TIME) showed the highest friction forces (higher than the normal
friction brackets [Omni Arch]). This study demonstrates that not all brackets provide “reduced friction,” even
though the manufacturers describe them as doing so. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:000-00)
(Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:69-73)

S
liding a tooth along an archwire is a very
common orthodontic procedure to translate a
tooth, especially during closure of spaces in the
dental arch. Whenever sliding occurs, a frictional type
force is encountered. Friction is defined as the force
resisting the motion of a body relative to another, and it
operates in the opposite direction of the motion. Fric-
tion is proportional to the normal force acting perpen-
dicular to the direction of the motion. The resistance to
friction is characterized by static and kinetic types of
force. Static friction is the force required to produce the
initial movement and is always stronger than the kinetic
force, which keeps the body in motion.1,2
The theoretic considerations and clinical implica-
tions of friction during sliding mechanotherapy have
a
Clinical lecturer, Department of Orthodontics, Hebrew University-Hadassah
Faculty of Dental Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel.
b
In partial fulfillment of the degree of DMD, Hebrew University-Hadassah
Faculty of Dental Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel.
c
Senior clinical lecturer, Department of Orthodontics, Hebrew University-
Hadassah Faculty of Dental Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel.
d
Senior lecturer, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, The Maurice and Gabriela
Goldshleger School of Dental Medicine, University of Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv,
Israel.
Reprint requests to: Dr Meir Redlich, Department of Orthodontics, The Hebrew
University-Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, POB 12271, Jerusalem
91120, Israel; e-mail, mredlich@zahav.net.il.
Submitted, March 2002; revised and accepted, October 2002.
Copyright © 2003 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
0889-5406/2003/$30.00 ⫹ 0
doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00238-5
been thoroughly evaluated. It has been demonstrated
that this force depends on complex variables, such as
materials, the angulation of bracket and wire,3 dimen-
sions and shape of slot and wire,4 ligating force,5
oscillating displacements,6 repeated use of brackets,7
and dry and wet situations.8,9 Because the orthodontic
force must overcome the frictional resistance (and the
resistance of the biologic milieu), minimizing friction
will result in reduced levels of the clinically applied
force needed for moving the teeth. Such a reduction
might shorten the treatment period or improve anchor-
age control.
In recent years, several bracket manufacturers have
been producing “reduced-friction” (or “friction-free”)
brackets. According to the manufacturers, modification
in bracket material and shape and in ligating techniques
contributes to a significant reduction in the friction
force between brackets and archwires during sliding
mechanics.
This study evaluated the static friction force created
between archwires and different “reduced-friction”
brackets during sliding mechanics.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Five brands of “reduced-friction” brackets were
evaluated: group A: NuEdge (TP Orthodontics, La-
Porte, Ind); group B: Discovery (Dentaurum, Ispringen,
69
70 Redlich et al
Fig 1. Bracket-mounting apparatus helps to bond
brackets to aluminium plate in exact position and an-
gulation before assembling in testing machine.
Germany); group C: Synergy (Rocky Mountain Ortho-
dontics, Denver, Colo); group D: Friction Free (Amer-
ican Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis); and group E:
TIME, a self-ligating bracket (American Orthodontics).
Group F (Omni Arch, GAC International, Bohemia,
NY) served as a control group.
Each bracket was bonded with a cyanoacrylate
adhesive (Aron Alpha, Toagosei Company, Tokyo,
Japan) to an aluminum plate with a bracket-mounting
apparatus (Fig 1), especially designed for this study;
this allowed similar and accurate positioning of the
bracket on the plate. Then the plate was fastened with
screws to a notch in a special device (Fig 2), also built
for this study; it was then attached to the base of an
Instron testing machine (Universal Testing Machine
4502, High Wycombe, United Kingdom). To take
second-order bends into account, the plates were placed
in 3 different notches angulated at 0°, 5°, and 10° to the
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
July 2003
Fig 2. Bracket is assembled with 5° angulation in
testing machine. Note sliding wire with weight attached
to its lower edge.
long axis of the device. (The 10° notch is not seen in
Fig 2 because it is located on the other side of the
device.) A segment of 15-cm archwire was ligated to
the brackets with an elastomeric module (Sani-Ties
Silver, GAC International), except to the self-ligating
brackets, which were tested in a closed position. The
module was ligated to the middle pair wings of the
Synergy brackets. The upper end of the wire was
inserted into a tension load cell of the testing machine,
and a 150-g weight was attached to the lower end of the
wire (Fig 2). Three different stainless steel wires were
tested: .018, .018 ⫻ .025, and .019 ⫻ .025 in (GAC
International). Each wire was drawn through the
bracket at a constant speed of 10 mm/min for a distance
of 5 mm.
Each group contained 75 stainless steel brackets,
for a maxillary right central incisor, with .022 ⫻
.028-in slots, as follows: 10 brackets each for 5° and
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 124, Number 1
Fig 3. A representative graphic curve of “resistance
force vs displacement.”
10° angulations for the 3 different wire sizes (60
brackets) and 5 brackets for the 0° angulation for each
wire (15 brackets). A total of 450 brackets were used in
this study. Both the static and kinetic friction forces
were recorded. For each bracket–wire combination, a
new wire and bracket were used.
The means and standard deviations of the friction
force results for each group of wires and angulations
were calculated and computed. The results between the
friction force, wire size, and angulations were analyzed
with the analysis of variance test. The results between
the different groups of brackets for each wire size and
angulation (9 combinations) were analyzed with the
Bonferroni multiple-comparison tests model.10 Statisti-
cal significance was determined at the P ⬍ .05 level.
RESULTS
The results of the friction force are displayed on an
x-y graph showing the magnitude of the static friction
force (in newtons) followed by the level of the kinetic
force during sliding of the wire for a 5-mm distance
(Fig 3). The mean static force and its standard deviation
for each group of different wires and angulations are
summarized in Table I. The brackets of group D
(Friction Free) showed significantly lower levels of
static friction for each wire size and angulation when
compared with all the other groups (P ⬍ .001). A
Redlich et al 71
significantly higher friction level for each wire and
angulation was generated by the self-ligating brackets
(group E, TIME) when compared with all the other
groups (P ⬍ .005).
The results of the multiple-comparison tests of
group A (NuEdge), group B (Discovery), group E
(TIME), and group F (Omni Arch, normal friction) for
each wire size and angulation are shown in Table II.
Significant and nonsignificant differences between the
brackets are indicated for every test. Group A
(NuEdge) was significantly superior to the normal-
friction brackets (group F, Omni Arch) in terms of
reduced friction forces for each combination of wire
and bracket angulation. Group B (Discovery) and group
E (TIME) were significantly inferior (high friction
force) to the normal friction brackets. Group D (Fric-
tion Free) was significantly superior to group F in terms
of reduced friction, and group C (Synergy) was similar
to group F in terms of friction forces (data not shown).
In all the brackets examined, the friction force
increased as the angulation and the wire size increased
(Table I).
DISCUSSION
One of the most important features of a friction
testing apparatus is the accurate and similar positioning
of each bracket–wire combination. To meet this re-
quirement, new devices were specifically designed and
built for this study, which focused on comparing
various “reduced-friction” brackets rather than on re-
examining the relationship between the bracket–wire
combination and friction force. However, our results
agree with previous reports showing that stronger
friction forces are developed when either wire size or
bracket–wire angulation increase.11,12 At the 0° brack-
et–wire angulation (free of binding and notching), the
friction forces were almost unaffected by the wire size
(Table II). This corresponds to the classical equation
that states that friction force depends only on the
friction coefficient and normal force.1
This study focused on static friction force only.
Kinetic friction was not considered because orthodontic
sliding of a tooth (bracket) in an archwire is not a
continuous or constant motion. As a result, tooth
movement does not resemble the classical pattern of an
object sliding on another, thereby overcoming the
kinetic friction force. From the clinical point of view,
overcoming the static friction force between the bracket
and the wire is a prerequisite for tooth movement.
Furthermore, because static friction force is always
greater than that of kinetic friction, the static force
determines the magnitude of the force system acting on
72 Redlich et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
July 2003

Table I. Friction force (in newtons) of different brackets for each wire size and wire– bracket angulation
Bracket
Wire–bracket
angulation Wire size (in) Nu-Edge A Discovery B Synergy C Friction Free D TIME E Omni Arch F

0° .018 0.90 ⫾ 0.07 1.98 ⫾ 0.04 1.40 ⫾ 0.0 0.01 ⫾ 0.0 2.30 ⫾ 0.0 1.18 ⫾ 0.21
.018 ⫻ .025 1.04 ⫾ 0.09 2.10 ⫾ 0.07 1.40 ⫾ 0.0 0.01 ⫾ 0.0 3.10 ⫾ 0.0 1.44 ⫾ 0.18
.019 ⫻ .025 1.18 ⫾ 0.04 2.16 ⫾ 0.11 1.50 ⫾ 0.0 0.10 ⫾ 0.0 3.10 ⫾ 0.0 1.78 ⫾ 0.27
5° .018 0.96 ⫾ 0.10 2.20 ⫾ 0.09 1.58 ⫾ 0.04 0.46 ⫾ 0.08 2.55 ⫾ 0.05 2.03 ⫾ 0.17
.018 ⫻ .025 1.32 ⫾ 0.14 2.27 ⫾ 0.05 1.88 ⫾ 0.10 0.65 ⫾ 0.05 3.13 ⫾ 0.07 1.81 ⫾ 0.21
.019 ⫻ .025 2.03 ⫾ 0.2 2.63 ⫾ 0.05 2.75 ⫾ 0.23 0.96 ⫾ 0.17 3.72 ⫾ 0.06 2.28 ⫾ 0.13
10° .018 1.77 ⫾ 0.26 2.47 ⫾ 0.12 2.09 ⫾ 0.12 0.85 ⫾ 0.05 2.88 ⫾ 0.04 2.23 ⫾ 0.18
.018 ⫻ .025 1.87 ⫾ 0.17 2.90 ⫾ 0.15 2.37 ⫾ 0.10 0.99 ⫾ 0.14 3.50 ⫾ 0.08 2.08 ⫾ 0.06
.019 ⫻ .025 2.43 ⫾ 0.38 3.17 ⫾ 0.12 3.27 ⫾ 0.23 1.54 ⫾ 0.10 4.27 ⫾ 0.47 2.72 ⫾ 0.22

Friction force data presented as mean ⫾ SD.

Table II. Friction forces (in newtons) of groups A, B, and E brackets, for each wire size and angulation,
compared with normal friction brackets of group F
Bracket P
Wire–bracket
angulation Wire size (in) Nu-Edge A Discovery B TIME E Omni Arch F A/F B/F E/F

0° .018 0.90 ⫾ 0.07 1.98 ⫾ 0.04 2.30 ⫾ 0.0 1.18 ⫾ 0.21 .63* .014** .005**
.018 ⫻ .025 1.04 ⫾ 0.09 2.10 ⫾ 0.07 3.10 ⫾ 0.0 1.44 ⫾ 0.18 .033** .002** .001**
.019 ⫻ .025 1.18 ⫾ 0.04 2.16 ⫾ 0.11 3.10 ⫾ 0.0 1.78 ⫾ 0.27 .12* .52* .001**
5° .018 0.96 ⫾ 0.10 2.20 ⫾ 0.09 2.55 ⫾ 0.05 2.03 ⫾ 0.17 .001** .27* .001**
.018 ⫻ .025 1.32 ⫾ 0.14 2.27 ⫾ 0.05 3.13 ⫾ 0.07 1.81 ⫾ 0.21 .001** .001** .001**
.019 ⫻ .025 2.03 ⫾ 0.2 2.63 ⫾ 0.05 3.72 ⫾ 0.06 2.28 ⫾ 0.13 .07* .001** .001**
10° .018 1.77 ⫾ 0.26 2.47 ⫾ 0.12 2.88 ⫾ 0.04 2.23 ⫾ 0.18 .005** .047** .001**
.018 ⫻ .025 1.87 ⫾ 0.17 2.90 ⫾ 0.15 3.50 ⫾ 0.08 2.08 ⫾ 0.06 .05** .001** .001**
.019 ⫻ .025 2.43 ⫾ 0.38 3.17 ⫾ 0.12 4.27 ⫾ 0.47 2.72 ⫾ 0.22 .80* .002** .001**

Friction force data are presented as mean ⫾ SD.

*P ⬎ .05, nonsignificant.
**P ⬍ .05, significant.

the teeth, irrespective of the possible low levels of
kinetic friction force.
Reducing friction in the wire– bracket interface is
believed to optimize the orthodontic force system
during treatment. Consequently, in recent years, orth-
odontic manufacturing companies have offered new
brackets intended to generate low friction forces during
sliding therapy. Reduction of friction can mainly be
achieved either by decreasing the friction coefficient of
the bracket or wire materials or by decreasing the force
of ligation acting on the wire.13 Manufacturing brackets
with a low-friction-coefficient alloy,14 replacing the
conventional twin tied brackets with single pair wing
ligation15 (reducing the ligating force), or using self-
ligating spring clips might contribute to a significant
reduction in the friction force.16,17
Of the brackets we tested, the single pair wing
mode of ligation (group D, Friction Free, and group C,
Synergy) produced a friction force weaker than that of
the self-ligation (group E, TIME). Interestingly, the
latter had the strongest static friction force. It is
assumed that this high friction force derives from either
excessive spring clip force acting on the wire or slot
design. Further elucidation of that matter is required.
This result is in contrast to previous reports,18-20 which
showed that the self-ligating bracket system produced a
significantly weaker friction force than did conventional
brackets. This inconsistency can be attributed to the use of
brackets from different companies or differences in the
testing methods (0° bracket–wire angulation).18,19
The superiority of Friction Free brackets in this
study, in terms of the friction force obtained, agrees
with a previous report,21 in which the friction force of
Friction Free brackets was described as “below the
minimum machine measurements.” This significant
reduction of the static friction force is probably due to
a combination of single pair wing ligation and the
material and design of the slot. However, single pair
wing ligation (Synergy) does not always produce a
lower friction than does the conventional 2 pairs of
wings (Nu-Edge). Furthermore, the Nu-Edge brackets
were the second best in reducing the static friction
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 124, Number 1
force. According to the manufacturer, the reduction of
friction is the result of using a high-technology cobalt-
chromium alloy, which has a lower friction coefficient
compared with other brackets’ alloys.
According to the manufacturer’s publication, Syn-
ergy brackets reduce friction dramatically and hence
shorten treatment time. This is achieved by minimum
friction ligation and the rounded arch slot floor and
walls. However, this study showed that Synergy pro-
duced almost the same friction force as the Omni Arch
control brackets with normal friction.
Discovery brackets, according to its manufacturer,
have low friction values because of the alloy used, the
slot design, and the special surface treatment. However,
when compared with Omni Arch normal-friction brack-
ets, Discovery brackets produced higher friction forces.
The importance of comparative friction force stud-
ies of new brackets is that they give clinicians indepen-
dent data within the limits of in vitro models. However,
these in vitro results are not relevant for clinical
situations. We recommend extending the scope of
similar studies, testing new archwires, and simulating
saliva in in-vitro wet conditions.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Not all of the brackets examined in this study
provided “reduced friction,” even though they were
described as doing so by the manufacturers.
2. Low levels of friction force depend on the reduction
of both the friction coefficient and the ligating force.
3. Further studies of self-ligating brackets are required,
especially with in vitro conditions, to evaluate fric-
tion force in spring clip brackets.
The statistical analysis was done by Mrs S. Gan
(Tamrat, Israel).
REFERENCES
1. Besancon RM. The encyclopedia of physics, 3rd ed. New York:
Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1985. p. 497-9.
2. Giancoli DC. Physics: principles and application. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980. p. 45-9.
3. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket
configurations and materials. Semin Orthod 1997;3:166-77.
4. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Influence of archwire and bracket dimen-
sions on sliding mechanics: derivations and determinations of the
critical contact angles for binding. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:199-
208.
5. Edwards GD, Davies EH, Jones SP. The ex vivo effect of ligation
Redlich et al 73
technique on the static frictional resistance of stainless steel
brackets and archwires. Br J Orthod 1995;21:145-53.
6. Willems G, Clocheret K, Celis J-P, Verbeke G, Chatzi-
charalampous E, Carels C. Frictional behavior of stainless steel
bracket-wire combination subjected to small oscillating displace-
ments. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:371-7.
7. Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Frictional resistance in orthodon-
tic brackets with repeated use. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1999;116:400-4.
8. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Prewitt MJ. Comparison of the frictional
coefficients for selected arch wire-bracket slot combinations in
the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod 1991;61:293-302.
9. Downing A, McCabe J, Gordon PH. The effect of artificial saliva
on the frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and arch-
wires. Br J Orthod 1995;22:41-6.
10. Hockberg Y, Tamhane AC. Multiple comparison procedures.
New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1987.
11. Kapila S, Angolkar PV, Duncanson M, Nanda RS. Evaluation of
friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodon-
tic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1990;98:117-26.
12. Loftus BP, Årtun J, Nicholls JI, Alonzo TA, Stoner JA. Evalu-
ation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various
bracket-arch wire combination. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1999;116:336-45.
13. Kapur R, Sinha PK, Nanda RS. Comparison of frictional resis-
tance in titanium and stainless steel brackets. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:271-4.
14. Meling TR, Odegaard J, Holthe K, Segner D. The effect of
friction on the bending stiffness of orthodontic beams: a theo-
retical and in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1997;112:41-9.
15. Suyama H, Higashi K, Nakata S, Nakasima A. New edgewise
bracket with rounded slot and variable ligation. J Clin Orthod
1995;6:398-402.
16. Berger JL. The influence of the SPEED bracket’s self-ligating
design on force levels in tooth movement: a comparative in vitro
study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:219-28.
17. Shivapuja PK, Berger JL. A comparative study of conventional
ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dento-
facial Orthop 1994;106:472-80.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Resistance to sliding of self-ligating
brackets versus conventional stainless steel twin brackets with
second-order angulation in the dry and wet (saliva) states. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:361-70.
21. Kuroe K, Tajiri T, Nakayama T, Nagakubo C, Kubota S,
Matsuda T, et al. Frictional forces with the friction free edgewise
bracket. J Clin Orthod 1994;6:347-51.