ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Friction between various self-ligating brackets

and archwire couples during sliding mechanics
Sennay Stefanos,a Antonino G. Secchi,b Guy Coby,c Nipul Tanna,a and Francis K. Manted
Philadelphia, Pa

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the frictional resistance between active and passive self-
ligating brackets and 0.019 3 0.025-in stainless steel archwire during sliding mechanics by using an
orthodontic sliding simulation device. Methods: Maxillary right first premolar active self-ligating brackets
In-Ovation R, In-Ovation C (both, GAC International, Bohemia, NY), and SPEED (Strite Industries,
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada), and passive self-ligating brackets SmartClip (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif),
Synergy R (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, Colo), and Damon 3mx (Ormco, Orange, Calif) with
0.022-in slots were used. Frictional force was measured by using an orthodontic sliding simulation device
attached to a universal testing machine. Each bracket-archwire combination was tested 30 times at
0 angulation relative to the sliding direction. Statistical comparisons were performed with 1-way analysis
of variance (ANOVA) followed by Dunn multiple comparisons. The level of statistical significance was set at
P \0.05. Results: The Damon 3mx brackets had significantly the lowest mean static frictional force (8.6 g).
The highest mean static frictional force was shown by the SPEED brackets (83.1 g). The other brackets
were ranked as follows, from highest to lowest, In-Ovation R, In-Ovation C, SmartClip, and Synergy R. The
mean static frictional forces were all statistically different. The ranking of the kinetic frictional forces of
bracket-archwire combinations was the same as that for static frictional forces. All bracket-archwire
combinations showed significantly different kinetic frictional forces except SmartClip and In-Ovation C,
which were not significantly different from each other. Conclusions: Passive self-ligating brackets have
lower static and kinetic frictional resistance than do active self-ligating brackets with 0.019 3 0.025-in
stainless steel wire. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:463-7)

T
here has been increased use of self-ligating
brackets in recent years, and several claims
have been made regarding their performance
compared with conventional edgewise brackets.1
Recent manufacturing modifications of brackets aimed
at reducing friction between the archwire and the
bracket slot are based on improved surface quality,
slot geometry modifications, varied bracket width, and
integrated ligation systems.1 It has been reported that
friction is determined largely by the nature of the
ligation.2,3 Therefore, various ligation systems have
been introduced with the edgewise bracket to secure
From the School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
a
Postgraduate student, Department of Orthodontics.
b
Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics.
c
Clinical assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics.
d
Associate professor, Department of Restorative and Preventive Sciences.
The first author worked on this research while a resident at the Department of
Orthodontics of the University of Pennsylvania. The views expressed in this
article are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position
of the Department of the Navy, the Department of Defense, or the United States
government.
Reprint requests to: Antonino G. Secchi, 240 S 40th St, Evans Building, room
E-9, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6030; e-mail, antonino@dental.upenn.edu.
Submitted, August 2008; revised and accepted, November 2008.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright Ó 2010 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.029
the wire in the bracket. Some self-ligating brackets
have a spring clip that presses against the archwire,
such as In-Ovation R and In-Ovation C (GAC Interna-
tional, Bohemia, NY) and SPEED (Strite Industries,
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada). These brackets have
been described as active self-ligating because there
might be a ligation force during sliding mechanics.4
Other self-ligating brackets such as Damon 3mx
(Ormco, Orange, Calif), SmartClip (3M Unitek,
Monrovia, Calif),5,6 and Synergy R (Rocky Mountain
Orthodontics, Denver, Colo) have a clip-gate that does
not press against the wire during sliding mechanics.7
These are described as passive self-ligating brackets.
Self-ligating brackets have been reported to have
lower frictional forces during sliding mechanics and
require less chair-side assistance.4,8 They are generally
smoother, more comfortable for the patient, and easier
to clean.9 According to Thorstenson and Kusy,10,11 the
lower friction of self-ligating brackets might be partly
explained by a greater critical contact angle with the
wire. There are conflicting claims of superior perfor-
mance regarding friction for both passive and active
self-ligating brackets.8,12,13 This conflict might be due
to the wide variations in data reported in previous
studies. Some studies show wide ranges between
463
464 Stefanos et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2010

Fig 2. Force vs displacement plot for static and kinetic

friction.

Fig 1. The orthodontic sliding simulation device used in Articolo26 was used to simulate the clinical use of ortho-
this study. dontic brackets (Fig 1). The simulation device consisted
of a special fixture mounted to the base of a mechanical
testing machine (model 4206, Instron, Canton, Mass).
minimum and maximum values,2,12,14 and others have
The fixture held a bracket slot that allowed for reproduc-
reported mean frictional force values with high
ible bracket positioning and was attached to an angula-
standard deviations, making it difficult to determine
tion dial. A test archwire was suspended from a collet
whether there are significant differences between
connected to the force transducer and the transverse
brackets.9,15,16
beam of the testing machine. The orthodontic device
In orthodontics, research efforts to understand the
was modified for self-ligating brackets by removing
factors that influence frictional resistance when consid-
0.010 in of ligature wire attached to a piston assembly
ering sliding mechanics have been focused on bracket
to transmit a normal force. The weight of the collet
width, archwire material,17-20 archwire size, second-order
holding the archwire was reduced to minimize noise
angulation,18,20-23 ligation type and technique,2,6-8,13-17
in data collection.
effect of saliva,23,24 and interbracket distance. These
The brackets were cemented onto the simulation de-
factors are critical when considering the clinical
vice bracket slot and initially set to be passive (0 ) in the
application of sliding mechanics.15
second order via the adjustable angulation dial. All
According to Pizzoni et al,25 experimental setups to
tested brackets had –7 of torque and 0 of second-
determine the effect of the above-mentioned factors on
order angulations, with the exception of Damon 3mx,
friction can be divided into 4 main groups: (1) archwires
which has 2 of distal offset. The 2 distal offset of
sliding through contact flats; (2) archwires sliding through
the Damon 3mx bracket was compensated for by using
brackets parallel to the brackets slot; (3) archwires sliding
the angulation dial. All angulations and torque values of
through brackets with different second- and third-order
the brackets remained fixed during data collection.
angulations; and (4) brackets submitted to a force with
During testing, the transverse beam with the collet
a certain degree of tipping allowed. The experimental
holding a 0.019 3 0.025-in stainless steel archwire
design of this study provided for archwires sliding
was lifted up to draw the archwire through the bracket.
through brackets parallel to the bracket slot; it falls into
The drawing force was monitored by the machine’s load
the second group.
cell (10 N) and transmitted to computer software
Our hypothesis was that there is no significant
(version 2.0, Measure, National Instruments, Austin,
difference in the resistance to sliding of a 0.019 3
Tex) for plotting drawing force vs distance charts.
0.025-in stainless steel archwire between active and
Maxillary right first premolar brackets with 0.022-in
passive self-ligating brackets. The purpose of this study
slots and prescriptions as described above were used.
was to compare the static and kinetic frictional forces
Each archwire-bracket couple was cleaned with 95%
generated between active and passive self-ligating
ethanol and compressed air just before evaluation. All
brackets by using a sliding simulator coupled with
testing was done in the dry state in prevailing air at
a 10-N load cell.
21 C. Each test consisted of 1 bracket and 1 archwire
at 0 angulation. Two examiners (N.T. and S.S.) verified
MATERIAL AND METHODS proper mounting of the brackets under 10-times magni-
An orthodontic sliding simulation device modified fication. The static frictional force was measured as the
from that reported by Articolo and Kusy19 and initial rise or peak force required to initiate movement
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Stefanos et al 465
Volume 138, Number 4

Table I. Descriptive statistics and statistical compari- Table II. Descriptive statistics and statistical compari-
sons of static frictional forces sons of kinetic frictional forces
Mean Median Minimum Maximum Mean Median Minimum Maximum
Bracket (g) SD (g) (g) (g) Bracket (g) SD (g) (g) (g)

Damon 3mx 8.6 0.4 8.6 7.9 9.3 Damon 3mx 6.0 0.9 5.8 5.1 7.4
In-Ovation R 38.1 1.6 38.2 34.2 41.6 In-Ovation R 34.1 2.1 34.1 31.4 36.4
In-Ovation C 33.4 1.2 33.3 30.3 35.3 In-Ovation C 28.8a 1.4 28.8 26.6 30.1
SmartClip 30.3 2.3 30.3 26.8 36.0 SmartClip 30.1a 1.3 30.1 28.5 31.6
SPEED 83.1 2.5 82.6 79.3 89.3 SPEED 81.7 2.9 81.7 77.8 85.5
Synergy R 23.8 1.5 23.8 21.4 27.8 Synergy R 21.8 3.2 21.8 16.9 25.2

All mean static friction values are significantly different from each Mean kinetic friction values with the same superscript letter are not
other (P \0.05). significantly different (P \0.05).

of the wire through the bracket (Fig 2). The peak force
was halved and defined as static frictional force.27 A
new bracket-archwire combination was used for each
test. Each test was performed 30 times.
The drawing force required to maintain movement
beyond the point of initial displacement was averaged
and then halved and recorded as the kinetic frictional
force. The archwire was drawn through the bracket
a distance of 20 mm at a speed of 1 cm per minute for
determination of kinetic friction. Data were obtained
at a rate of 5 scans per second for 2 minutes.
The 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the
Dunn multiple comparison tests were performed with
statistical software (version 3.5, SigmaStat, Systat Soft-
ware, Point Richmond, Calif). The level of statistical
significance was set at P \0.05.
RESULTS
A plot of force vs displacement obtained during
friction testing is shown in Figure 2. The region for
determining static friction was designated ‘‘static
friction,’’ and regions for determination of kinetic
friction were called ‘‘kinetic friction.’’ Table I shows
the results of the mean static frictional forces for the
brackets investigated. Statistical analysis showed that
passive self-ligating brackets ranked as follows from
lowest to highest mean static friction: Damon3mx
(8.6 g), Synergy R (23.8 g), and SmartClip (30.3 g).
The static friction of the passive self-ligating brackets
was significantly different from each other. Among
the active self-ligating brackets, the ranking from lowest
to highest static friction was In-Ovation C (33.4 g),
In-Ovation R (38.1 g), and SPEED (83.1g). The active
self-ligating brackets showed significantly higher static
frictional forces than the passive self-ligating brackets.
The kinetic frictional force values are shown in
Table II. The ranking of the kinetic frictional forces of
passive and active self-ligating brackets to archwire com-
binations was the same as that for the static frictional
forces. Kinetic friction values for all bracket-archwire
combinations were significantly different, except for
SmartClip and In-Ovation C.
DISCUSSION
These results show significant differences in both
static and kinetic frictional forces among passive and
active self-ligating brackets with a 0.019 3 0.025-in
stainless steel archwire. The exception to this finding
was that kinetic frictional forces associated with Smart-
Clip, a passive self-ligating bracket, were not statisti-
cally different from those of In-Ovation C, an active
self-ligating bracket. Among the passive self-ligating
brackets investigated, Damon3mx had the lowest and
SmartClip the highest static and kinetic frictional
forces. The results further showed significant differ-
ences between active self-ligating brackets, with
SPEED having the highest static and kinetic frictional
forces. Our findings agree with those of previous
studies, that passive self-ligating brackets generate
lower static and kinetic frictional forces than do active
self-ligating brackets.9,25,28
The similarity between the kinetic frictional forces
generated by SmartClip and In-Ovation C is an interest-
ing result. SmartClip has been described as a pro-
grammed nickel-titanium clip that releases the wire if
the force of ligation needed to keep the wire in the
slot exceeds a certain limit.5,29 This phenomenon was
not observed in this study. The classification of
SmartClip as a passive self-ligating bracket might
hold true when the archwire size is smaller than 0.019
3 0.025 in.5 At higher archwire sizes, some ligation
force might be exerted.12 Based on these results, it is
questionable to classify SmartClip as a passive self-
ligating bracket for all archwire sizes. The relatively
low static and kinetic frictional force values observed
for In-Ovation C (an active self-ligating bracket) might
be explained by the rhodium coating on the clip, accord-
ing to the manufacturer’s information. However, the
466 Stefanos et al
stability of the coating on In-Ovation C brackets during
treatment is unknown.
The simulation device coupled with a 10-N load cell
provided friction values with relatively low standard de-
viations and a low spread of values between minimum
and maximum friction (Tables I and II) compared
with other studies.2,9,12,14,16
The data obtained in this laboratory study do not de-
scribe the complete complex clinical situation. Since the
ligation force of self-ligating brackets is predictable and
independent of force decay, the comparative data
obtained are useful for guiding the selection of wire-
bracket combinations for sliding mechanics.1 The
Damon3mx bracket showed significantly the lowest
frictional force compared with the other brackets tested.
This bracket will be expected to show less friction in
sliding mechanics with rectangular 0.019 3 0.025-in
stainless steel wire. Conversely, it might be difficult to
fully express the bracket’s prescription if used with
0.019 3 0.025-in stainless steel as a finishing wire.
The SPEED bracket generated the highest static and
kinetic frictional forces. SPEED brackets could more
favorably express the bracket prescription if used with
0.019 3 0.025-in stainless steel wire. On the contrary,
SPEED brackets might not favor sliding mechanics.
An important aspect to consider when evaluating
bracket design is the normal (perpendicular) force of
ligation.2,3 In most studies, the frictional force decreases
as the normal ligation force is minimized.11,14,15
Different methods of ligation that have been
introduced with edgewise brackets have resulted in
varying normal forces and their corresponding
frictional forces. Frictional forces are important to
study because a large, variable percentage of the force
applied by the orthodontist is lost to overcome friction
instead of moving teeth.26,30 Information about the
friction of orthodontic brackets and archwire systems
is important for improving the effectiveness of
orthodontic treatment.
The selection of brackets should be based on the de-
sired clinical outcome. Low frictional forces might be
desired during leveling and aligning but could be inap-
propriate for expressing the torque in the bracket or
achieving other objectives of finishing and detailing.
Likewise, high frictional forces might be desired for ex-
pressing torque in the bracket or finishing and detailing
but be inappropriate for the leveling and aligning stages
of treatment.
CONCLUSIONS
This study confirmed that passive self-ligating
brackets have lower static and kinetic frictional forces
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2010
compared with active self-ligating brackets when cou-
pled with 0.019 3 0.025-in stainless steel wire. The
Damon3mx bracket has significantly the lowest static
and kinetic frictional forces, and SPEED has the highest
frictional force of the brackets investigated. The simula-
tion device and low threshold load cell provided data
with lower measurement variations when comparing
differences in friction of sliding.
We thank 3M Unitek, GAC International, Strite
Industries, Ormco, and Rocky Mountain Orthodontics
for providing the materials tested in this study; Robert
L. Vanarsdall, Jr, Department of Orthodontics, School
of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, for sup-
port and advice in designing the research; Alex Radin,
Department of Materials Science and Engineering,
School of Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, and
Laurence Articolo, orthodontist of Blackwood, NJ for
their technical expertise in the construction of the sliding
simulation device.
REFERENCES
1. Gostovich LT. The influence of bracket design on resistance to
sliding [thesis]. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania; 2003.
2. 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;124:395-402.
3. Schumacher HA, Bourauel C, Drescher D. The effect of the
ligature on the friction between bracket and arch. Fortschr Kiefer-
orthop 1990;51:106-16.
4. Voudouris JC. Interactive edgewise mechanisms: form and
function comparison with conventional edgewise brackets. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:119-40.
5. Miles PG. Smart Clip versus conventional twin brackets for initial
alignment: is there a difference? Aust Orthod J 2005;21:123-7.
6. Miles PG. Self-ligating vs conventional twin brackets during
en-masse space closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:223-5.
7. Thomas S, Sherriff M, Birnie DA. 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.
8. Harradine NW. Self-ligating brackets: where are we now?
J Orthod 2003;30:262-73.
9. Franchi L, Baccetti T, Camporesi M, Barbato E. Forces released
during sliding mechanics with passive self-ligating brackets or
nonconventional elastomeric ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2008;133:87-90.
10. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Effect of archwire size and material on
the resistance to sliding of self-ligating brackets with second-
order angulation in the dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2002;122:295-305.
11. 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.
12. Kim TK, Kim KD, Baek SH. Comparison of frictional forces
during the initial leveling stage in various combinations of
self-ligating brackets and archwires with a custom-designed
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 138, Number 4
typodont system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;
133:187.e15-24.
13. Matasa CG. Self-engaging brackets: passive vs. active. Orthod
Mater Insider 1996;9:5-11.
14. Henao SP, Kusy RP. Evaluation of the frictional resistance of con-
ventional and self-ligating bracket designs using standardized
arch-wires and dental typodonts. Angle Orthod 2004;74:202-11.
15. Tecco S, Di Iorio D, Cordasco G, Verrocchi I, Festa F. An in vitro
investigation of the influence of self-ligating brackets, low friction
ligatures, and archwire on frictional resistance. Eur J Orthod
2007;29:390-7.
16. Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Train T, Di Iorio D, D’Attilio M.
Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using
a 10 bracket model. Angle Orthod 2005;75:1041-5.
17. Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces
between bracket and archwire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1989;96:397-404.
18. Frank CA, Nikoli RJ. A comparative study of frictional resis-
tances between orthodontic bracket and archwire. Am J Orthod
1980;78:593-609.
19. Articolo LC, Kusy RP. Influence of angulation on the resistance to
sliding in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1999;115:39-51.
20. Vaughan JL, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Relative ki-
netic frictional forces between sintered stainless steel brackets and
orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:20-7.
21. Ogata RH, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG Jr, Sinha PK, Currier GF.
Frictional resistances in stainless steel bracket-wire combinations
Stefanos et al 467
with effects of vertical deflections. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Or-
thop 1996;109:535-42.
22. Bednar JR, Gruendman GW, Sandrik JL. A comparative study of
frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:513-22.
23. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Prewitt MJ. Comparion of the fric-
tional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combina-
tions in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod 1991;61:
293-302.
24. Downing A, McCabe JF, Gordon PH. The effect of artificial saliva
on the frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and
archwires. Br J Orthod 1995;22:141-6.
25. Pizzoni L, Ravnholt G, Melsen B. Frictional forces related to
self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 1998;20:283-91.
26. Articolo LC. Evaluation of the resistance to sliding of three
distinctive ceramic bracket designs using a new orthodontic
sliding simulation device [thesis]. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania; 2002.
27. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket
configurations and materials. Semin Orthod 1997;3:166-77.
28. Thorstenson GA, Kusy RP. Comparison of resistance to sliding
between different self-ligating brackets with second-order angula-
tion in the dry and saliva states. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2002;121:472-82.
29. Agarwal S, Valiathan A, Shah NV. Self-ligating brackets. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:5.
30. Nanda R. Biomechanics in clinical orthodontics. Philadelphia:
W.B. Saunders; 1997. p. 188-217.