...
首页> 外文期刊>Cureus. >In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Frictional Resistance of Connecticut New Arch Wires, Stainless Steel and Titanium Molybdenum Alloy Archwires Against Different Brackets
【24h】

In Vitro Comparative Evaluation of Frictional Resistance of Connecticut New Arch Wires, Stainless Steel and Titanium Molybdenum Alloy Archwires Against Different Brackets

机译:康涅狄格新拱丝摩擦阻力的体外比较评价,不锈钢和钼合金弓丝对不同托架的摩擦阻力

获取原文
           

摘要

Background and objectives Friction between the bracket and archwire during sliding mechanics is of great concern?in orthodontics, as it reduces the effectiveness of the orthodontic appliance and slows down tooth movement. The aim of this study was to evaluate frictional resistance of stainless steel (SS), titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA), and Connecticut new arch (CNA) wires against SS and ceramic brackets. The surface textures of the brackets and wires were also evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after testing. Method A total of 180 premolar brackets of SS (ORMCO Corp., Orange, CA) and 180 ceramic (3M Unitek, Maplewood, MN) with a 0.022-inch slot and 180 SS, TMA, and CNA wires of 0.017 x 0.025 inches and 0.019 x 0.025 inches were tested. The SS brackets and ceramic brackets were bonded onto the SS bar with cyanoacrylate adhesive with the help of a jig. The wire assembly was vertically mounted and clamped to the jaws of the universal testing machine with 10 N load cell, and friction was measured along with other readings. The surface roughness of brackets and wires were examined using SEM in 200 X magnification before and after testing. Results TMA wire showed the greatest frictional force compared to SS and CNA wire. The frictional force was greater in the 0.019 x 0.025-inch wire compared to the 0.017 x 0.025-inch wires. The highest frictional force was noted in the SS bracket and 0.019 x 0.02-inch TMA wire combination. A statistically significant difference was not seen between the SS bracket and 0.019 x 0.025-inch SS wire and the 0.019 x 0.025-inch CNA wire combinations. SEM showed that the TMA archwire had the roughest surface area compared to SS and CNA wires, and the ceramic bracket had more surface roughness than the SS bracket. Conclusion CNA wire demonstrated frictional resistance similar to the SS wire. CNA wire can be used instead of TMA wire because of its better range of action, high spring back, and less frictional resistance for space closure in sliding mechanics.
机译:在滑动力学期间支架和拱门之间的背景和目标摩擦是非常关注的?在正畸学中,它降低了正畸器具的有效性并减慢了牙齿运动。本研究的目的是评估不锈钢(SS),钼合金(TMA)的摩擦阻力,以及针对SS和陶瓷支架的康涅狄格新拱(CNA)电线。还通过在测试之前和之后扫描电子显微镜(SEM)来评估支架和线的表面纹理。方法总共180个Premolar括号的SS(Ormco Corp.,Orange,CA)和180个陶瓷(3M Unitek,Maplewood,Mn),具有0.022英寸的槽和180秒,TMA和CNA线,为0.017×0.025英寸和测试0.019×0.025英寸。通过夹具用氰基丙烯酸酯粘合将SS支架和陶瓷支架粘合到SS棒上。线组件垂直地安装并夹紧到具有10n的载体电池的通用试验机的钳口,并与其他读数一起测量摩擦。在测试之前和之后,使用200 x放大率的SEM检查支架和线的表面粗糙度。结果TMA线与SS和CNA线相比,最大的摩擦力。与0.017×0.025英寸的线相比,0.019×0.025英寸的摩擦力更大。 SS支架中指出的最高摩擦力和0.019×0.02英寸TMA线组合。 SS支架和0.019×0.025英寸SS线之间没有看到统计学上的显着差异,0.019×0.025英寸CNA线组合。 SEM表明,与SS和CNA线相比,TMA archWire具有粗糙的表面积,并且陶瓷支架具有比SS支架更多的表面粗糙度。结论CNA线展示了与SS线相似的摩擦阻力。由于其在滑动力学中的空间闭合的空间封闭的较好的动作,高弹簧背部和较少的摩擦阻力,可以使用CNA线代替TMA线。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号