Comparison of the static frictional resistance and surface topography of ceramic orthodontic brackets: an in vitro study


Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine


ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480





Volume / Issue / page

Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 33 , ISSUE 1 (May 2017) > List of articles

Comparison of the static frictional resistance and surface topography of ceramic orthodontic brackets: an in vitro study

Mai AlSubaie / Nabeel Talic *

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 24-34, DOI:

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 30-July-2021



Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate the frictional resistance (FR) and surface topography of newly available polycrystalline alumina (PCA) ceramic brackets characterised by a yttria-stabilised zirconia (YSZ) coating of the slots, compared with monocrystalline alumina (MCA) ceramic brackets and stainless steel (SS) brackets.

Methods: The FR was investigated using a universal testing machine. The test groups included PCA (Clarity Advanced, 3M Unitek, CA, USA) and MCA (Inspire Ice, Ormco, CA, USA). The control group included SS brackets. A sliding test was performed for each bracket type with three bracket-wire angulations (0°, 5°, 10°). A total of 225 sliding tests were performed in a dry environment, and 225 tests were performed in a wet environment of artificial saliva. A scanning electron microscope was used for qualitative assessments. The surface topography of the bracket slots was quantitatively assessed using an optical profilometer.

Results: In the dry environment, the overall FR values were significantly lower for PCA and SS brackets compared with MCA brackets (p < 0.001), but no significant difference was found between PCA and SS brackets. In the wet environment, there were no significant differences between the bracket groups and their overall FR values. There was a significant correlation between the overall FR and the bracket-wire angulation values (p < 0.001). The bracket slot surface topography revealed that the PCA bracket slots had the highest roughness values, followed by SS and MCA brackets (p < 0.001). There was no significant correlation between the roughness values of the bracket slots and the FR in a passive configuration for all bracket types.

Conclusion: A yttria-stabilised zirconium coating of the PCA ceramic bracket slots might be a positive approach to apply for the reduction of FR.

Content not available PDF Share



1. Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher H. Frictional forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;96:397- 404.

2. Tidy DC. Frictional forces in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;96:249-54.

3. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket configurations and materials. Semin Orthod 1997;3:166-77.

4. Tanne K, Matsubara S, Hotei Y, Sakuda M, Yoshida M. Frictional forces and surface topography of a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;106:273-8.

5. Articolo LC, Kusy RP. Influence of angulation on the resistance to sliding in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999;115:39-51.

6. Montasser M, El-Bialy T, Keilig L, Reimann S, Jäger A, Bourauel C. Force loss in archwire-guided tooth movement of conventional and self-ligating brackets. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:31-8.

7. Rossouw PE. Friction: an overview. Semin Orthod. 2003;9:218-22.

8. Karamouzos A, Athanasiou AE, Papadopoulos MA. Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;112:34-40.

9. Fonseca LM, Araújo TM, Santos AR, and Faber J. Impact of metal and ceramic fixed orthodontic appliances on judgments of beauty and other face-related attributes. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2014;145:203-6.

10. Viazis AD, DeLong R, Bevis RR, Rudney JD, Pintado MR. Enamel abrasion from ceramic orthodontic brackets under an artificial oral environment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:103-9.

11. Russell JS. Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod 2005;32:146- 63.

12. Keith O, Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Zirconia brackets: an evaluation of morphology and coefficients of friction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:605-14.

13. Loftus BP, Artun J, Nicholls JI, Alonzo TA, Stoner JA. Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999;116:336-45.

14. Chang CJ, Lee TM, Liu JK. Effect of bracket bevel design and oral environmental factors on frictional resistance. Angle Orthod 2013;83:956-65.

15. Thorstenson G, Kusy R. Influence of stainless steel inserts on the resistance to sliding of esthetic brackets with second-order angulation in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod 2003;73:167-75.

16. Redlich M, Mayer Y, Harari D, Lewinstein I. In vitro study of frictional forces during sliding mechanics of “reduced-friction” brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124:69-73.

17. Taloumis LJ, Smith TM, Hondrum SO, Lorton L. Force decay and deformation of orthodontic elastomeric ligatures. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;111:1-11.

18. Griffiths HS, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Resistance to sliding with 3 types of elastomeric modules. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2005;127:670-5.

19. Reicheneder CA, Baumert U, Gedrange T, Proff P, Faltermeier A, Muessig D. Frictional properties of aesthetic brackets. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:359-65.

20. Guerrero AP, Guariza Filho O, Tanaka O, Camargo ES, Vieira S. Evaluation of frictional forces between ceramic brackets and archwires of different alloys compared with metal brackets. Bras Oral Res 2010;24:40-5.

21. Pimentel RF, de Oliveira RS, Chaves MD, Elias CN, Gravina MA. Evaluation of the friction force generated by monocristalyne and policristalyne ceramic brackets in sliding mechanics. Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18:121-7.

22. Pliska BT, Fuchs RW, Beyer JP, Larson BE. Effect of applied moment on resistance to sliding among esthetic self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod 2014;84:134-9.

23. Cha JY, Kim KS, Hwang CJ. Friction of conventional and silicainsert ceramic brackets in various bracket-wire combinations. Angle Orthod 2007;77:100-7.

24. Choi SH, Kang DY, Hwang CJ. Surface roughness of three types of modern plastic bracket slot floors and frictional resistance. Angle Orthod 2014;84:177-83.

25. Saunders CR, Kusy RP. Surface topography and frictional characteristics of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994;106:76-87.

26. Bazakidou E, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG Jr, Sinha P. Evaluation of frictional resistance in esthetic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;112:138-44.

27. Omana HM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Frictional properties of metal and ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1992;26:425-32.

28. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Coefficients of friction for arch wires in stainless steel and polycrystalline alumina bracket slots. I. The dry state. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:300-12.

29. Ireland AJ, Sherriff M, McDonald F. Effect of bracket and wire composition on frictional forces. Eur J Orthod 1991;13:322-8.

30. Downing A, McCabe J, Gordon P. A study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Br J Orthod 1994;21:349-57.

31. Doshi UH, Bhad-Patil WA. Static frictional force and surface roughness of various bracket and wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:74-9.

32. Theiss S, Wyllie WE, Morris GP. Low friction coatings on ceramics for application in orthodontic brackets. IADR Abstracts. IADR/ AADR/CADR 89th General session and exhibition, March 16-19, 2011, San Diego, CA.

33. Kosmac T, Oblak C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. The effect of surface grinding and sandblasting on flexural strength and reliability of Y-TZP zirconia ceramic. Dent Mater 1999;15:426-33.

34. Zinelis S, Eliades T, Eliades G, Makou M, Silikas N. Comparative assessment of the roughness, hardness, and wear resistance of aesthetic bracket materials. Dent Mater 2005;21:890-4.

35. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Assessment of second-order clearances between orthodontic archwires and bracket slots via the critical contact angle for binding. Angle Orthod 1999;69:71-80.

36. Smith DV, Rossouw PE, Watson P. Quantified simulation of canine retraction: evaluation of frictional resistance. Semin Orthod 2003;9:262-80.

37. Angolkar PV, Kapila S, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS. Evaluation of friction between ceramic brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:499-506.

38. Prososki RR, Bagby MD, Erickson LC. Static frictional force and surface roughness of nickel-titanium arch wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:341-8.

39. Meine K, Schneider T, Spaltmann D, Santner E. The influence of roughness on friction. Part II. The influence of multiple steps. Wear 2002;253:733-8.