ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Reducing Friction in Orthodontic Brackets: A Matter of Material or Type of Ligation Selection? In-Vitro Comparative Study.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antibacterial effects of silver and titanium dioxide nanoparticles-coated orthodontic arch wires: in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Changes in the Mechanical Properties of Nickel-Titanium Orthodontic Archwires After Clinical Use with Conventional and Self-Ligating Brackets.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Cytokines as Key Drivers of Pathological Root Resorption: Integrating Molecular Mechanisms, Genetic Determinants, and Biomarker-Based Insights.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- Heavy Metal-Driven Oral Dysbiosis: Salivary Toxicometallomics at the Host-Microbiome Interface Across Pathologies.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Toward Smart Salivary Diagnostics: A Comprehensive Review of Heavy Metal Biomarkers and Digital Risk Modeling.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparison of Alignment Efficiency, Arch Dimensional Changes, and Passive Extraction Space Closure Between Self-Ligating and Conventional Brackets in Extraction Crowding Patients: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Pain experience during initial alignment with self-ligating and conventional fixed orthodontic appliance system: A comparative clinical study.Journal of orthodontic science · 2026Article
- Inclination Changes in Incisors During Orthodontic Treatment with Passive Self-Ligating Brackets.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Frictional resistance in orthodontic archwires: A comprehensive review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2025Review
- Oral Mycobiome Alterations in Postmenopausal Women: Links to Inflammation, Xerostomia, and Systemic Health.Biomedicines · 2024Review
- Impact of Malocclusions on Periodontopathogenic Bacterial Load and Progression of Periodontal Disease: A Quantitative Analysis.Microorganisms · 2024Article
- Review
- Graphene as a promising material in orthodontics: A review.Journal of orthodontic science · 2024Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Two Bracket Systems' Kinetic Friction: Conventional and Self-Ligating.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: Orthodontic appliances have changed and improved with the increasing demand for orthodontic treatment of the general population. Patients desire for shorter orthodontic treatments and for the wearing of more aesthetic devices has led to the technological development of orthodontic brackets; these were manufactured from aesthetic materials (ceramics, composite polymers) and presented different designs regarding the way archwires are ligated to the bracket. The aim of this study was to determine whether there were any differences between the static frictional forces generated by stainless steel (metallic) and polycrystalline alumina (ceramics) conventional and self-ligating brackets. (2) Methods: Static friction assessment was carried out in vitro with a universal testing machine, HV-500N-S (Schmidt Control Instruments, Hans Schmidt & Co. GmbH), intended for measuring compression and traction forces. (3) Results: The study revealed significant differences in static frictional forces at the bracket-archwire interface between the tested brackets. Stainless steel brackets produced lower static friction forces than polycrystalline alumina and self-ligating brackets generally produced lower static frictional forces than conventional brackets. The reduction of frictional forces was noticeable in the first stages of treatment, when thin, flexible orthodontic archwires (0.016" NiTi) are used. Engaged with large rectangular stainless steel archwires, (0.019 × 0.025" SS), the frictional forces produced by conventional and self-ligating metal brackets were similar, no significant differences being observed between the two types of metallic design. However, in the case of tested ceramic brackets, the results showed that the self-ligating type allows a reduction in frictional forces even in advanced stages of treatment compared to conventionally ligation. (4) Conclusions: From the perspective of an orthodontic system with low frictional forces, metal brackets are preferable to aesthetic ones, and self-ligating ceramic brackets are preferable to conventional ceramic brackets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.