It is thought that static, rather than kinetic, frictional forces may be more relevant
in orthodontic tooth movement. This is due to the bracket/archwire system having
stopping and starting movements as the teeth are moved. In vitro testing of ortho-
dontic archwires and brackets can be performed in either a wet or dry environ-
ment. Wet testing is usually done by submerging the archwire/bracket system in
saliva, salivary substitute, or glycerin solution. Stannard et al. [5-43] measured
kinetic coefficients of friction for stainless steel, beta Ti, NiTi, and Co-Cr arch-
wires on a smooth stainless steel or Teflon surface. A universal material testing
instrument was used to pull rectangular archwire (0.17⫻0.025 in) through pneu-
matically controlled binding surfaces. Coefficients of friction were determined
under dry and wet (artificial saliva) conditions. It was found that (i) frictional force
values (and thus coefficients of friction) were found to increase with increasing
normal force for all materials, (ii) beta-Ti and stainless steel were sliding against
stainless steel, and stainless-steel wire on Teflon consistently exhibited the lowest
dry friction values, (iii) artificial saliva increased friction for stainless steel, beta-
Ti and NiTi wires sliding against stainless steel, but (iv) artificial saliva did not
increase friction of Co-Cr, stainless steel sliding against stainless steel, or stain-
less-steel wire on Teflon compared to the dry condition, and (v) stainless steel and
beta-Ti wires sliding against stainless steel, and stainless-steel wire on Teflon,
showed the lowest friction values for the wet conditions [5-43].
Stainless steel, Co-Cr, NiTi, and beta-Ti wires were tested in narrow single
(0.050 in), medium (0.130 in), and wide twin (0.180 in) stainless-steel brackets in
both 0.018 and 0.022 in slots. It was reported that (i) beta-Ti and NiTi wires gen-
erated greater amounts of frictional forces than stainless steel or Co-Cr wires did
for most wire size, and (ii) increase in wire size generally resulted in increased
bracket-wire friction [5-44]. However, it was reported that wires in ceramic brack-
ets generated significantly stronger frictional forces than did wires in stainless
steel-brackets [5-45].
Kusy et al. [5-46] evaluated coefficients of friction in the dry and wet (saliva)
states of stainless steel, Co-Cr, NiTi, and beta-Ti wires against either stainless steel
or polycrystalline alumina brackets. It was found that (i) in the dry state and
regardless of slot size, the mean kinetic coefficients of friction were smallest for
all the stainless-steel combinations (0.14) and largest for the beta-Ti wire combi-
nation (0.46), (ii) the coefficients of polycrystalline alumina combinations were
generally greater than the corresponding combinations that included stainless
steel-brackets, (iii) in the wet state, the kinetic coefficients of the all stainless-steel
combinations increased to 0.05 over the dry state, but (iv) all beta-Ti wire combi-
nations in the wet state decreased to 50% of the values in the dry state [5-46].
Surface roughness and static frictional force resistance of orthodontic NiTi
archwires along with beta-Ti alloy wire, stainless-steel and Co-Cr alloy wires were
measured. It was found that (i) the Co-Cr alloy and the NiTi alloy wires exhibited
Mechanical and Tribological Behaviors 115
Else_BBTM-OSHIDA_ch005.qxd 9/16/2006 11:23 AM Page 115