Download remarks of the guide

THESIS – SYNOPSIS
DR. LYN MARY KURIAN
POST GRADUATE STUDENT
DEPARTMENT OF ORTHODONTICS AND
DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPAEDICS
K.V.G. DENTAL COLLEGE & HOSPITAL
KURUNJIBAGH, SULLIA – 574327
DAKSHINA KANNADA
RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA
ANNEXURE II
PROFORMA FOR REGISTRATION OF SUBJECT FOR DISSERTATION
1
NAME OF THE CANDIDATE
: DR. LYN MARY KURIAN
AND ADDRESS(IN BLOCK
POST GRADUATE STUDENT, DEPT. OF
LETTERS)
ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL
ORTHOPAEDICS,
K.V.G DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL,
KURUNJIBAGH, SULLIA-574327
2
NAME OF THE INSTITUTION
: K.V.G DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL,
KURUNJIBAGH, SULLIA – 574327
3
COURSE OF THE STUDY AND
SUBJECT
4
DATE OF ADMISSION TO
: MASTER OF DENTAL SURGERY
ORTHODONTICS. BRANCH-V
: 18 MAY 2012
COURSE
5
TITLE OF THE TOPIC
OF
FRICTIONAL
: COMPARISON
RESISTANCE OF CONVENTIONAL AND
TEFLON COATED ARCH WIRES WITH
CERAMIC AND STAINLESS STEEL
BRACKETS-AN IN VITRO STUDY
6 BRIEF RESUME OF THE INTENDED STUDY:
6.1 Need for the study:
Friction is defined as the resistance to motion when a solid object moves tangentially
against another.1
When one moving object contacts another, friction at their interface produces
resistance to the movement. Similarly guiding a tooth along an arch wire causes frictional
forces.2
Friction during clinical tooth movement depends on size and shape of archwire3, the
bracket type4,5, the bracket and wire materials6, the angulation of the wire relative to the
bracket7and the type of ligation3.
Teflon or polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) material is an anti-adherent and aesthetic
material that has excellent chemical inertia as well as good mechanical stability. Since Teflon
has a low coefficient of friction, archwires with a teflon coating could possibly reduce
reistances.1
Ceramic brackets were developed to improve esthetics during orthodontic treatment.
In clinical use, however, they have problems including high frictional resistance to sliding
mechanics with stainless steel archwires.8,9
Teflon coated wires being tooth coloured, increase aesthetic value when used in
ceramic brackets. Teflon coated archwires produced lower frictional levels than their
corresponding uncoated arch wires with metal brackets1. Hence this study will be undertaken
to compare frictional resistance of teflon coated and conventional archwires with ceramic and
stainless steel brackets.
6.2 Review of literature:
1.A study was done to evaluate the frictional resistance to bodily tooth movement along a
continuous arch wire. The effect of load, bracket width, slot size, arch wire size, and material
were studied. It was found that friction was proportional to applied load and inversely
proportional to bracket width. Arch dimension and slot size had little effect. Nitinol and TMA
arch wires produced frictional forces two and five times greater than those of stainless steel
wires.10
2.A study was done to evaluate the frictional properties of metal and ceramic brackets. The
ceramic brackets
demonstrated significantly higher frictional forces compared to the
stainless steel brackets. The scanning electron micrographs showed that smoothness alone
could not account for differences in bracket friction. Based on its monocrystalline structure
and relatively smooth slot end surface, the Starfire bracket would be expected to produce
lower frictional forces. In actuality, it produced values similar to those of the polycrystalline
brackets with rougher slot end surfaces.11
3.A study demonstrated that ceramic brackets with metal slots generated significantly lower
frictional forces than do conventional ceramic brackets but higher forces than stainless steel
brackets. Beta-titanium archwires had higher frictional resistances than stainless steel and
nickel-titanium archwires. No significant differences were found between stainless steel and
nickel-titanium archwires. All brackets showed higher static and kinetic frictional forces as
the wire size increased.12
4.A study was done to evaluate friction of stainless steel and esthetic self-ligating brackets in
various bracket-archwire combinations. In this study it was demonstrated that stainless steel
self ligating brackets generated significantly lower static and kinetic frictional forces than
both conventional stainless steel and polycarbonate self-ligating brackets. Beta-titanium
archwires had higher frictional resistances than did stainless steel and nickel-titanium
archwires. No significant differences were found between stainless steel and nickel-titanium
archwires. All brackets showed higher static and kinetic frictional forces as the wire size
increased. In patients with esthetic demands, polycarbonate self-ligating brackets was a
valuable alternative to conventional stainless steel and ceramic brackets.13
5.A study was done using two types of wires nickel-titanium and stainless steel, on which
diamond-like carbon (DLC) films were deposited. Three types of brackets, a conventional
stainless steel bracket and two self-ligating brackets, were used for measuring static friction.
The surfaces of nickel-titanium and stainless steel orthodontic wires were successfully
modified by the plasma based ion implantation/deposition( PBIID) method to create a DLC
layer. The DLC-coating process reduced the frictional force for these wires in brackets. The
DLC layer had a higher hardness value than the as-received wires. Self-ligating brackets
produced less frictional force than the conventional stainless steel bracket.14
6. An in vitro study was done to evaluate the effect of teflon coating on the resistance to
sliding of orthodontic archwires, Twelve types of archwires with round and rectangular
sections and of different materials(stainless steel and nickel-titanium) were tested with two
passive self- ligating brackets and one active self ligating bracket. Each archwire-bracket
combination was tested 10 times under 8 simulated clinical scenarios. For all bracketarchwire combinations, Teflon coated archwires resulted lower friction than the
corresponding uncoated archwires.1
6.3 Objectives of the study:
1. To evaluate frictional resistance of teflon coated and conventional archwires with
ceramic and stainless steel brackets.
2. To compare frictional resistance of teflon coated and conventional archwires with
ceramic and stainless steel brackets.
7 MATERIALS AND METHODS:
7.1 Materials required:
Arch wires:
Name
Dimensions(inches)
Manufacturer
0.019 x 0.025
G&H wire(Greenwood,Ind)
Teflon coated Ni-Ti archwire
0.019 x 0.025
G&H wire(Greenwood,Ind)
Conventional stainless steel
0.019 x 0.025
G&H wire(Greenwood,Ind)
0.019 x 0.025
G&H wire(Greenwood,Ind)
Teflon coated stainless steel
archwire
archwire
Conventional Ni-Ti archwire
brackets:
1. Bondable stainless steel premolar brackets of 0.022” slot (3M
Unitek,Monrovia,California,USA)
2. Bondable ceramic premolar brackets of 0.022” slot (3M Unitek
,Monrovia,California,USA) will be used.
Ligatures: regular elastomeric ligatures will be used.
Composition of test groups:
group
specimen
1. groupI
:Ceramic bracket with 0.019” x 0.025” teflon coated stainless
steel archwire
2. groupII
:Ceramic bracket with 0.019” x 0.025” teflon coated Ni-Ti
archwire
3. groupIII
: Ceramic bracket with 0.019” x 0.025” conventional stainless
Steel archwire
4. groupIV
:Ceramic bracket with 0.019” x 0.025” conventional Ni-Ti
archwire
5. groupV
:Stainless steel bracket with 0.019” x 0.025”
teflon coated stainless steel archwire
6. groupVI
:Stainless steel bracket with 0.019” x 0.025”
teflon coated Ni-Ti archwire
7. groupVII
:Stainless steel bracket with 0.019” x 0.025” conventional
stainless steel archwire
8. groupVIII
:Stainless steel bracket with 0.019” x 0.025” conventional
Ni- Ti archwire
Sample size:
1. 80 Brackets will be used.
2. 80 archwires will be used
7.2 Methodology:
The study will be performed in the Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,
KVG Dental College and Hospital,Sullia in association with the Composite Technology
Park,Bangalore by using a Universal Strength Testing Machine.
Evaluation of friction at the archwire/bracket interface will be carried out as per the test
protocol described by Tidy D C in 1989. A custom made jig consisting of a heavy base block
will be constructed to record the resistance of movement of test brackets(ceramic and
stainless steel) through archwires. Straight lengths of both teflon coated and conventional
stainless steel archwire of 0.019” x 0.025” will be used and both teflon coated and
conventional Ni-Ti archwire of 0.019” x 0.025” will be used. Two types of maxillary
premolar brackets(ceramic and stainless steel) each incorporating -7° torque and 0°
angulation will be used as test brackets.
Four edgewise brackets will bonded with a water proof adhesive to a specially constructed jig
at 8 mm intervals to secure the archwire with a 16 mm space for a movable PEA maxillary
Premolar bracket at the center.
Testing will be conducted on Universal Testing Machine over an 8-mm stretch of archwire.
The bracket will be pulled in a vertical direction and the force required to initiate and
maintain movement will be measured.
This will be done for 10 non repeated evaluations for each archwire/bracket combinations.
The study period will be of approximately six months.
7.3 Statistical analysis:
Two way ANOVA and Tukey test will be used to determine the significant frictional
differences between archwires and brackets. Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney tests will be used
to determine frictional difference between Teflon coated and uncoated archwires.
7.4 Does the study require any investigations or interventions to be conducted in
patients or other humans
No
7.5 Has ethical clearance been obtained from your institution
Yes, copy of ethical clearance is enclosed
8 REFERENCES:
1. Farronato G, Maijer R, Carìa MS, Esposito L, Alberzoni D, Cacciatore G. The effect
of teflon coating on the resistance to sliding of orthodontic archwires. European
journal of orthodontics 2011;4:1-8.
2. Hain M, Dhopatkar A, Rock P. The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding
mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:416-22.
3. Bazakidou E, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG Jr,
Sinha P. Evaluation of frictional
resistance in esthetic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:138-144.
4. Redlich M, Mayer Y, Harari D, Lewinstein I. In vitro study of frictional force during
sliding mechanics of “reduced-friction” brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2003;124:69-73.
5. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2 vs conventional twin
brackets during initial alignment. Angle Orthod 2006;76:480-485.
6. Saunders CR, Kusy RP. Surface topography and frictional characteristics of ceramic
brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:76-87.
7. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional resistance between
orthodontic bracket and archwire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1980;78:593-609.
8. Kusy RP. Morphology of polycrystalline alumina brackets and its relationship to
fracture toughness and strength. Angle Orthod 1988;58:197-203.
9. Bazakidou E, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG, Sinha P. Evaluation of frictional resistance
in esthetic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:138-44.
10. Tidy DC. Frictional forces in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1989;96(3):249-254.
11. Omana HM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Frictional properties of metal and ceramic
brackets. J Clin Orthod 1992; 26(7):425-432.
12. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Klersy C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of
friction of conventional and metal-insert ceramic brackets in various bracket-archwire
combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:403-9.
13. 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.
14. Muguruma T, Lijima M, Brantley WA, Mizoguchi I. Effects of a diamond-like
carbon coating on the frictional properties of orthodontic wires. Angle Orthod
2011;81:141–148.
9.
SIGNATURE OF CANDIDATE
10.
REMARKS OF THE GUIDE
11.
NAME AND DESIGNATION OF
(IN BLOCK LETTERS)
11.1 GUIDE
DR. MAHESH KUMAR Y M.D.S
PROFESSOR
11.2 SIGNATURE
11.3 HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT
DR. SHARATH KUMAR SHETTY M.D.S.
DIRECTOR OF PG STUDIES,
PROFESSOR AND HOD,
DEPARTMENT OF ORTHODONTICS AND
DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPAEDICS,
K.V.G DENTAL COLLEGE AND
HOSPITAL, KURUNJIBAGH, SULLIA D.K
-574327
11.4 SIGNATURE
12.
REMARKS OF THE PRINCIPAL
Dr. MOKSHA NAYAK M.D.S.
PRINCIPAL,
K.V.G. DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL,
KURUNJIBAGH,SULLIA.
12.1 SIGNATURE