IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research

Print ISSN: 2581-9356

Online ISSN: 2581-9364

CODEN : IIJOCV

IP Indian Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Research (IJODR) open access, peer-reviewed quarterly journal publishing since 2015 and is published under the Khyati Education and Research Foundation (KERF), is registered as a non-profit society (under the society registration act, 1860), Government of India with the vision of various accredited vocational courses in healthcare, education, paramedical, yoga, publication, teaching and research activity, with the aim of faster and better dissemination of knowledge, we will be publishing the more...

  • Article highlights
  • Article tables
  • Article images

Article statistics

Viewed: 144

PDF Downloaded: 58


Get Permission Kolhe, Patani, Daokar, Kumar, Pawar, and Dhope: Evaluation of dimensional accuracy and surface roughness of lingual bracket slot –An in vitro study


Introduction

Today orthodontists are facing increasing demand by adults for esthetic treatment alternative.1 Currently, practicing orthodontists have the choice between numerous esthetic multibracket appliances for fixed therapy. Regarding esthetics, important factors includes appliance display, size, and color stability. 2, 3 Patients’ wish for almost invisible orthodontic appliances has led to the development of Lingual bracket system. The paradigm shift with the increasing number of adults and teens seeking aesthetic options for orthodontic treatment led to the increased demand for lingual orthodontics. The lingual technique has continually evolved by offering both prefabricated brackets and custom-made brackets. The various techniques have been improved over time, and the results are better than ever. 4 Even though manufacturers of the bracket system take utmost care during fabrication, 5 Badawi HM et al reported that the significant amount of variation in measurements resulted from structural variation in the brackets, specifically the slot size. 6 Manufacturing processes of the bracket, results in some variance in sizes and characteristics, including dimensional accuracy and torque prescription consistency.

One of the most important parameters in deciding the contact angle value during sliding mechanotherapy is the slot dimension. 7 The resistance to sliding mechanics can occur if the contact angle between the archwire and bracket increases, this creates the need for precise bracket slot dimension. Slot precision is a key factor that influences tooth position not only in the labiolingual but also in the vertical dimension.8 Brown P et al reported that about one-third of the brackets would not accommodate a full-size wire, and 15% to 20% were 0.001 inches or larger than the nominal advertised size.9 Failure to reproduce the bracket system's accuracy and prescribed dimensions will result in undersized or oversized wires in the bracket slot, compromising treatment results.

On the other hand, standardized international guidelines are lacking; the measurements of angles and distances, therefore, have to be unified with a view to future investigations.10 When it comes to size and slot dimensions, lingual brackets are very different from labial brackets.11 With the rise of lingual orthodontics in our everyday practice, it's more critical than ever for practitioners to understand these potential bracket size variations.

Another important factor with bracket system is surface roughness that affect tooth movement. Frictional forces, corrosion activity, the efficacy of arch-guided tooth movement, and the aesthetics of orthodontic components are all affected by the surface roughness of orthodontic archwire and brackets.12 The amount of friction varies proportionally to the dimensions' accuracy and the bracket slot's roughness.13

The study aims to evaluate the precision of commercially available orthodontic lingual brackets slot size in inch dimensions using a stereomicroscope and to compare the measured dimension to the manufacturer's reported dimension. It also aims to measure and compare the surface roughness of commercially available orthodontic lingual bracket slots using an atomic force microscope.

Materials and Methods

Orthodontic Lingual brackets from three different manufacturers (frequently used) were taken for evaluation of slot dimensions. Twenty brackets of each manufacturer were selected randomly. They were divided into groups as follows:

  1. Group 1- STB (Ormco, Glendora, CA, USA)

  2. Group 2- LMX Brackets (Lingual Matrix, India)

  3. Group 3- i-Lingual (JLO, India)

Equipment Used

  1. Trinocular Stemi 2000 Stereo Zoom Microscope with Digital Camera (Carl Zeiss, Germany) was used for the measurement of bracket slot dimensions.

  2. Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) (Nanoscope® IV Di digital instrument, California, USA) was used to evaluate the surface roughness of lingual brackets slots.

Methods of measurement

Analysis of brackets slot dimension

Trinocular Stemi 2000 Stereo Zoom Microscope (Carl Zeiss, Germany) was used for viewing the bracket slot at 40X magnification. The brackets were stabilized using putty as the base to provide a clear view of the slot walls (Figure 1). Each bracket was scanned and captured individually in the stereomicroscope on both the mesial and distal sides to produce a digital image. The images were exported and calibrated with software. The software used was accurate up to a least count of 1 micron or up to 5 decimals in inches. (Figure 2)

Thus, the measurements (in inches) were obtained for the following:

  1. Mesial face of slot

  2. Mesial base of the slot

  3. Distal face of slot

  4. Distal base of the slot

  5. Mesial slot depth

  6. Distal slot depth

The values obtained were compared to the dimensions published by each manufacturer. Comparisons were also made between brackets of different manufacturers.

Evaluation of surface roughness of the lingual brackets slots

The three-dimensional surface roughness of the slots of the lingual brackets was evaluated using an Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) which is considered a promising technique for the evaluation of surface qualities.14 (Figure 3)

Surface roughness analysis procedure

Five lingual brackets of each manufacturer were randomly selected and observed with an atomic force microscope. The samples were attached to a metal holder and then each specimen was observed under Atomic Force Microscope with probes mounted on cantilevers with a spring. The slot floors of the orthodontic brackets were scanned in an air condition chamber. All of the scanned images were 50 µm×50µm (Figure 4). Three-dimensional images were processed using Gwyddion software 2.9 and average roughness (Ra) and mean square roughness (Rms) were recorded. (Figure 5)

Average roughness (Ra): The Average Roughness (Ra) is the arithmetic average of the absolute values of the roughness profile ordinates. Ra is one of the most effective surface roughness measures and gives a good general description of the height variations in the surface.

Mean square roughness (Rms): It is defined as the square root of the sum of the squares of the individual heights and depths from the mean line. This method measures a sample for peaks and valleys. Lower numbers indicate a smoother finish.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software (Version 22) with an analysis of means and standard deviations for each parameter. Statistical analysis for surface roughness was performed using by Kruskal-Wallis Test for intergroup comparison.

Results

Results can be divided into

  1. Analysis of slot dimensions of Individual bracket systems and

  2. Comparative Analysis of surface roughness of bracket systems.

Analysis of individual bracket systems

STB system (Table 1)

In a comparison of slot dimension with the manufacturer standard of 0.018 inches the mesial face, mesial base, distal face, and distal base, there were statistically significant differences in the entire dimension recorded as compared to the manufacturer’s standards. Mesial and distal face recordings were found to be 4% more than the manufacturer’s standards and the values at mesial and distal bases were more than the manufacturer’s standards. The mesial base was larger by 3.5%.

In a comparison of slot dimension with the manufacturer standard of 0.022 inches the discrepancy of mesial, distal depth was larger approximately by 4% and showed a statistically significant result

Bracket (Table 2)

In a comparison of slot dimensions with the manufactures standard of 0.018 inches the mesial face, mesial base, distal face, and distal base, there were statistically significant differences in the entire dimension recorded as compared to the manufacturer’s standard. Mesial face and distal base recordings were found to be 3.3 % more than the manufacturer’s standard and the value at the mesial base was more than 3.1% of the manufacturer’s standard. The mesial base was larger by 3.7%.

In a comparison of slot dimensions with the manufactures standard of 0.022 inches the discrepancies at mesial, and distal depth were larger by 2.2 and 2.8% respectively, showing statistically significant results.

i-Lingual system (Table 3)

In a comparison of slot dimension with the manufacturer standard of 0.016 inches the mesial face, mesial base, distal face, and distal base, there were statistically significant differences in the entire dimension recorded as compared to the manufacturer’s standard. Mesial and distal face recordings were found to be more than 5 and 4.2% respectively of the manufacturer’s standard and the value at the mesial and distal base was more than the manufacturer’s standard by 6.3 and 6% respectively.

In a comparison of slot dimension with the manufacturer standard of 0.022 inches the discrepancy of mesial, and distal depth were larger approximately by 4% and 2.2% respectively also showing statistically significant results.

Comparative analysis of surface roughness of bracket systems (Table 4)

Descriptive statistics showed that the least value for average roughness (Ra) recorded was of LMX Bracket and also maximum dimension was of i- Lingual.

Descriptive statistics showed that the least value for mean surface roughness recorded was of i-Lingual and also maximum dimension was of STB.

In a comparison of surface roughness among three manufacturers, it was evaluated that the difference in average roughness (Ra) and the difference in mean square roughness (Rms) were of no significant value. Statically insignificant results showed that the bracket systems were similar concerning the surface roughness of the brackets.

Figure 1

Bracketon mounting

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/34d711d1-b1bd-454b-9623-59d2b7747a4bimage1.jpeg
Figure 2

Bracket been scanned under atomic force microscope

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/34d711d1-b1bd-454b-9623-59d2b7747a4bimage2.jpeg
Figure 3

Slot dimention of lingual bracket

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/34d711d1-b1bd-454b-9623-59d2b7747a4bimage3.jpeg
Figure 4

Surface roughness of lingual bracket slot 2d image

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/34d711d1-b1bd-454b-9623-59d2b7747a4bimage4.jpeg
Figure 5

Surface roughness of lingual bracket slot 3D image

https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/typeset-prod-media-server/34d711d1-b1bd-454b-9623-59d2b7747a4bimage5.png

Table 1

omparison of slot dimension with manufactures standard of 0.018 x 0.022 inches. (STB system)

Dimensions

Test Value = 0.018

t

df

Sig.

Mean Difference

Mean Change in %

Mesial face

8.320

19

.000

.000735

+4.0

Mesial base

3.695

19

.002

.000610

+3.3

Distal face

7.807

19

.000

.000725

+4.0

Distal base

9.413

19

.000

.000660

+3.6

Test Value = 0.022

Dimensions

t

df

Sig.

Mean Difference

Mean Change in %

Mesial depth

5.908

19

.000

.0007600

+3.4

Distal depth

6.543

19

.000

.0007700

+3.5

Table 2

Comparison of slot dimension with manufactures standard of 0.018 x 0.022 inches. (Lingual Matrix System)

Dimensions

Test Value = 0.018

t

Df

Sig.

Mean Difference

Mean Change in %

Mesial face

7.886

19

.000

.0006000

+3.3

Mesial base

6.439

19

.000

.0005650

+3.1

Distal face

7.174

19

.000

.0006650

+3.7

Distal base

5.474

19

.000

.0005950

+3.3

Test Value = 0.022

Dimensions

t

df

Sig.

Mean Difference

Mean Change in %

Mesial depth

6.839

19

.000

.0004800

+2.2

Distal depth

6.078

19

.000

.0006250

+2.8

Table 3

omparison of slot dimension with manufactures standard of 0.016 x 0.022 inches. (i-Lingual system)

Dimensions

Test Value = 0.016

t

df

Sig.

Mean Difference

Mean Change in %

Mesial face

7.007

19

.000

.0008100

+5

Mesial base

10.518

19

.000

.0010050

+6.3

Distal face

6.186

19

.000

.0006800

+4.2

Distal base

8.641

19

.000

.0009750

+6

Test Value = 0.022

Dimensions

t

df

Sig.

Mean Difference

Mean Change in %

Mesial depth

6.515

19

.000

.0008800

+4

Distal depth

6.601

19

.000

.0005000

+2.2

Table 4

Comparison of surface roughness by Kruskal Wallis Test.(Surface roughness)

Unit

Name of Brackets

N

Mean Rank

Chi-Square

df

Sig.

Ra

STB

5

7.80

1.140

2

.566

Lingual Matrix

5

6.60

i-Lingual

5

9.60

Total

15

Rm

STB

5

8.60

.180

2

.914

Lingual Matrix

5

8.00

i-Lingual

5

7.40

Total

15

Discussion

Despite the growing number of adults interested in improving their smiles through orthodontic treatment, the visual impact and the duration of the treatment itself are frequent obstacles to patient acceptance. Fast and less visible treatment is a desirable option that adult patients often request from their orthodontists. 15

The precision of bracket slot dimensions

Lingual brackets are different in regard to configuration and clinical aspects. Specifically, conventional lingual brackets are smaller sized to increase patient's comfort and improve oral hygiene. 14

Orthodontic brackets are essential components of modern fixed appliances. They should have a specific archwire slot to deliver the exact force and minimize frictional resistance. The degree of play is entirely determined by geometric parameters, such as the actual slot height, archwire dimensions, and edge beveling. However, on the market, these do not necessarily correspond to the manufacturer's specifications. 16 Kusy R et al (1999) reported that 15% of the brackets were smaller than documented, and slot sizes were up to 16% and 8% larger than the nominal value. 17

Cash AC et al. reported that .022-inch brackets from 11 different bracket series representing six different manufacturers' bracket systems were oversized by 5 to 24%, and that imprecise machining of bracket slot dimensions and play of undersized archwires can have a direct and negative impact on tooth three-dimensionality. 18 According to Joch A et al., 19 if the slot dimensions are larger, the fraction of the specified torque in the bracket is lost due to archwire play within the slot and this torque loss in maxillary and mandibular anterior due to oversized bracket slots and undersized archwire dimensions is illustrated by Siatkowski. 20

In contrast, if the slot dimensions are smaller than those specified by the manufacturer, there will be less clearance during sliding mechanics, creating more friction and strain on the anchor teeth. According to Demling A, the analyzed bracket systems for lingual treatment had substantial differences in slot dimension, which will clinically result in torque play, and the findings of this study back up this statement. 21 As a result, most orthodontic brackets should be precisely manufactured using a three-dimensional prescription for each tooth. 22, 23

Assad Loss et al reported that the dimensions of the slots were larger than disclosed by the manufacturer, with a range of 1.8 percent to 10.9 percent in height and from 8.2 percent to 49 percent in depth. 24 According to K.J. Kabbur et al., the slot dimensions of Ormco STb; Leone; Dentaurum; Dentos Org. Lingual Brackets were not as specified by the manufacturers,  the slots were either too small or too large. 25 Slot dimensions were not precise as per manufacturer’s standard and bracket dimensions were oversized or undersized for all bracket systems. The results of the study were statistically significant, indicating that slot measurements for particular lingual brackets were not as precise as the manufacturer's norms. Clinicians should be aware that the inadvertent use of orthodontic brackets can result in a three-dimensional loss of tooth positioning.

Furthermore, potential driving factors of this alarming lack of standardization of orthodontic brackets, such as their alloy properties and/or manufacturing processes, should be considered. The orthodontist should anticipate such shortcomings and be able to modify treatment mechanics through additional wire bending in three spatial planes. 26

Surface roughness

Factors influencing surface roughness are related to the material composing brackets and wires, surface conditions of arches and bracket slot, archwire cross-section, torque at the wire-bracket interface, bonding strength, use of self-ligating brackets, interbracket distance, presence of saliva and influence of oral functions. 27 In the present study the three-dimensional surface roughness of the lingual brackets slots was evaluated using Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) for that, 2 parameters, i.e. average roughness (Ra) and mean square roughness (Rms).

Surface roughness of STb (Ormco, Glendora, CA, USA), LMX Bracket (Lingual Matrix, India), and i-Lingual (JLO, India) were compared.

The atomic force microscope is considered to be a promising technique for evaluating quantitative analysis of nanoscale irregularities on surfaces. The surface roughness of various ceramic brackets was measured using atomic force microscopy (AFM) by Lee GJ (2010) and Park KH et al. 28

Values for average roughness (Ra) can be arranged in ascending order as follows LMX Bracket < STB < i- Lingual. Values for mean square roughness (Rms) can be arranged in ascending order as follows i-Lingual < LMX Brackets < STB. (Table 4)

Limitations of the Study

Further study is needed to check changes in sot dimension, surface roughness before and after use.

Conclusions

  1. In the present study, slot dimensions and surface roughness of lingual bracket slots of three different manufacturers were evaluated. These values were compared with the manufacturer’s stated dimensions. There was a significant difference in the readings recorded on the mesial and distal points of brackets in all the bracket systems. The slot evaluated showed, in STb (Ormco, Glendora, CA, USA), LMX Brackets (Lingual Matrix, India), and i-lingual brackets (JLO, India) the slots were significantly oversized.

  2. Thus it was summarised that all the bracket systems were not precise; they were either undersized or oversized. On comparing the surface roughness of these bracket systems, the result was statistically insignificant; thus inferring that the bracket systems were similar concerning the surface roughness of the bracket slot.

  3. The orthodontist should anticipate such shortcomings and be able to modify treatment mechanics through additional wire bending in three spatial planes.

Source of Funding

None.

Conflict of Interest

None.

References

1 

SA Kairalla A Galiano LR Paranhos Lingual orthodontics is an aesthetic resource in the preparation of orthodontic/surgical treatmentInt J Orthod Milwaukee2014252315

2 

RJ Dobrin IL Kamel DR Musich Load-deformation characteristics of polycarbonate orthodontic bracketsAm J Orthod19756712433

3 

W Harzer C Bourauel H Gmyrek Torque capacity of metal and polycarbonate brackets with and without a metal slotEur J Orthod200426443541

4 

P Baron Invisible and almost invisible orthodontic appliancesOrthod Fr20148515991French

5 

A Arreghini L Lombardo F Mollica G Siciliani Torque expression capacity of 0.018 and 0.022 bracket slots by changing archwire material and cross-sectionProg Orthod20141515310.1186/s40510-014-0053-x

6 

HM Badawi RW Toogood JP Carey G Heo PW Major Torque expression of self-ligating bracketsAm J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop200813357218

7 

K Tangri P Kumar P Sharma K Kumar DK Bagga R Sharma A Comparison of the Accuracy of 0.022 Slots at Face, Base and Mesial and Distal Surface of Brackets marketed by Different ManufacturersJ Ind Orthod Soc20124631326

8 

GS Dolci AM Spohr ER Zimmer EM Marchioro Assessment of the dimensions and surface characteristics of orthodontic wires and bracket slotsDental Press J Orthod20131826975

9 

A Joch M Pichelmayer F Weiland Bracket slot and archwire dimensions: manufacturing precision and third order clearanceJ Orthod20103742419

10 

P Brown W Wagner H Choi Orthodontic bracket slot dimensions as measured from entire bracket seriesAngle Orthod201585467882

11 

F Ata-Ali T Cobo De Carlos F Cobo J Ata-Ali J BMC Oral Health2017171133 10.1186/s12903-017-0424-z

12 

F Brugnami A Caiazzo S Dibart Lingual orthodontics: the accelerated realignment of the "social six" with precisionCompend Contin Educ Dent201334860810

13 

S Geron Self-ligating brackets in lingual orthodonticsSemin Orthod20081416472

14 

V D'Antò R Rongo G Ametrano G Spagnuolo P Manzo R Martina Evaluation of orthodontic wires' surface roughness through atomic force microscopyAngle Orthod20128259228

15 

VS Pai SS Pai S Krishna M Swetha Evaluation of Slot Size in Orthodontic Brackets: Are Standards as Expected?J Ind Orthod Soc201145416974

16 

CO Agarwal KK Vakil A Mahamuni PD Tekale PV Gayake JK Vakil Evaluation of surface roughness of the bracket slot floor-a 3D prospective studyProg Orthod20161710.1186/s40510-016-0116-2

17 

R Kusy J Whitley Assessment of second-order clearances between orthodontic archwires and bracket slots via the critical contact angle for bindingAngle Orthod19996917180

18 

R Siatkowski Loss of anterior torque control due to variations in bracket slot and archwire dimensionsJ Clin Ortho199933950810

19 

AC Cash SA Good RV Curtis F Mcdonald An evaluation of slot size in orthodontic brackets--are standards as expected? Angle OrthodAngle Orthod20047444503

20 

A Demling MP Dittmer R Schwestka-Polly Comparative analysis of slot dimension in lingual bracket systemsHead Face Med200952710.1186/1746-160X-5-27

21 

N Bhalla S Good F Mcdonald M Sherriff A Cash Assessment of slot sizes in self-ligating brackets using electron microscopyAust Orthod J20102613841

22 

ND Alqahtani Assessment on the Precision of the Orthodontic Bracket Slot Dimensions Using Micro-computed Tomography (Micro-CT)J Contemp Dent Pract20212212733

23 

V Cacciafesta M F Sfondrini A Ricciardi A Scribante C Klersy F Auricchio Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire combinationsAm J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop20031244395402

24 

AMD Lugo DR Ruiz RF Marichi OS Padilla Variations in slot size of self-ligating bracketsRev Mex Ortodon2015342247

25 

TF Assad-Loss LM Cavalcante RM Neves JN Mucha Avaliação dimensional de slots de bráquetes metálicosRev Flum Odont20101514551

26 

KJ Kabbur Evaluation and comparison of bracket slot dimensions in lingual bracket systems: An in vitro studyJ World Federation Orthodontists2019831248

27 

GJ Lee KH Park YG Park HK Park A quantitative AFM analysis of nano-scale surface roughness in various orthodontic bracketsMicron201041777582

28 

KH Park HJ Yoon SJ Kim GJ Lee HK Park YG Park Surface roughness analysis of ceramic bracket slots using atomic force microscopeKorean J Orthod2010405294303



jats-html.xsl


This is an Open Access (OA) journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

Article type

Original Article


Article page

208-214


Authors Details

Shweta Abhijit Kolhe*, Sheetal Patani, Suchita S. Daokar, Tarun Kumar, Rakesh Ashok Pawar, Sumit Vasant Dhope


Article History

Received : 02-05-2024

Accepted : 15-07-2024


Article Metrics


View Article As

 


Downlaod Files