RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,

BANGALORE, KARNATAKA

ANNEXURE II

PROFORMA FOR REGISTRATION OF SUBJECTS FOR
DISSERTATION

1. /

Name of the candidate and address

/
DR.RAGHU.H.H
POST GRADUATE STUDENT,
DEPARTMENT OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS.
GOVERNMENT DENTAL COLLEGE
AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
BANGALORE- 560002
2. /
Name of the Institution
/ GOVERNMENT DENTAL COLLEGE AND RESEARCH INSTITUTE
BANGALORE
3. /

Course of the study and subject

/ MASTER OF DENTAL SURGERY ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS
4. /

Date of Admission to course

/ 13. 06. 2007
5. / Title of the Topic
“COMPARISION OF FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE BETWEEN POLYMER COATED ELASTOMERIC MODULES & CONVENTIONAL MODULES- AN IN-VIVO STUDY”
6.
6.1 / BRIEF RESUME OF THE INTENDED WORK
Need for the study
§  Friction is defined as a force tangential to the common boundary of two bodies in contact that resist the motion or tendency to motion of one relative to another1.
§  During orthodontic space closure with sliding mechanics, a frictional force generated at the bracket/archwire interface tends to impede the desired movement. In clinical terms, the force applied must overcome this unknown frictional component and achieve the desired tooth movement2.
§  Many factors have been implicated in influencing friction in Orthodontic systems, including wire/alloy composition, wire deflection, wire size, bracket slot material, bracket width, lubrication and method of ligation3.
§  Between 12% to 60% of applied force in fixed appliances is lost to friction. A combination of mechanical and chemical factors determines friction at archwire-bracket-ligature interface4.
§  A single elastic module produces a ligation force of 50 to 150gms. Modules coated with metafasix have been claimed to reduce the friction of ligation by 60% compared with uncoated modules with similar elastic properties4.
§  Any improvement in frictional properties would be of clinical benefit only if the coating remained functional in oral environment4.
§  The effect of saliva on friction is controversial because investigation carried out under dry conditions or with addition of human or artificial saliva or water have produced conflicting results2.
§  The in-vivo environment differs markedly from ex-vivo conditions because of variables such as masticatory force and temperature.2.
§  The present study attempts to compare the frictional resistance produced by polymer coated elastomeric modules with conventional modules in oral environment.
§ 
c / 6.3 Review of literature
1.  An invitro study was conducted to investigate the effect of ligation method on friction and evaluated the efficiency of a new slich elastomeric module (TP Orthodontics). Results showed that when considering tooth movement along 0.019”x0.025” Stainless Steel archwire, saliva lubricated modules can reduce static friction upto 60% regardless of bracket system 2.
2.  A study was conducted to determine whether super-slich modules showed low friction than round and rectangular modules. The results showed that round modules provided the least resistance to sliding and rectangular modules the greatest with super-slich in between two 3 .
3.  An in-vitro study was conducted to examine the stability of the coating and compare the frictional properties of coated modules with those of other common ligation methods. The results showed that coated modules produced 50% less friction than all other ligation methods 4.
4.  A study was conducted to investigate the degradation of force and surface characteristics of different elastomeric modules when used clinically in a true oral environment. Results showed that coated elastomeric modules showed less force degradation as compared to non-coated modules 5.
6.2 Objectives of the study
1.  To comparatively evaluate the frictional resistance of polymer coated elastomeric modules with conventional modules, during sliding
mechanics.
2.  To evaluate the surface degradation of polymer coated elastomeric modules in oral environment.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
7.1 Materials
1.  0.019”X0.025” stainless steel archwire (3M).
2.  Modules coated with covalently bonded Metafasix(Super- Slich, TP Orthodontics).
3.  Conventional elastomeric modules (3M).
4.  0.022” 3M Unitek brackets.
7.2 Procedure
For this study, upper arch will be ligated with polymer coated elastomeric modules and lower arch with conventional modules for five individuals and vice versa for other five individuals.
After one week the modules from premolars will be collected. The specimens retrieved will be stored in normal saline during the transportation to the testing machine.
These modules will be mounted on jigs and will be tested for frictional resistance using an universal testing machine (INSTRON TESTING MACHINE)
New modules will be replaced in patient’s mouth and the test will be repeated after four weeks.
The modules collected will be examined under Scanning Electron
Microscope to evaluate the surface degradation.
7.3. Does the study require any investigation or interventions to be conducted on patients or other humans or other animals?
YES
7.4 Has ethical clearance been obtained from your institution in case of 7.3?
YES
8. / LIST OF REFERENCES:
1.  Drescher D, BOURANEL C, Schumacher HA; Frictional forces between brackets & arch wire ; AJODO 1989 : 96 , 397-4041.
2.  Max Hain, Ashish Dhopatkar & Peter Rock ; The effect of ligation method on friction in sliding mechanics ; AJODO 2003 ;123: 416-222
3.  Helen Sylvia Griffiths, Martyn Sherriff, & Anthony John Ireland ; Resistance to sliding with 3 types of elastomeric modules; AJODO 2005; 127: 670-53.
4.  Max Hain, Ashish Dhopatkar & Peter Rock ;A comparision of different ligation methods on friction.AJODO 2006; 130:666-704.
5.  Sanjeev Datana,Jaideep Sengupta, Vineet Sharama; JIOS 2006;39:23-295.
6. M. R. Renick, William A Brantley, F. Michael Beck, Katherine W. L. Vig; Studies of orthodontic elastomeric modules.Part 1;Glass transition temperatures for representative pigmented products in the as-received condition and after orthodontic use; AJODO 2004;126:337-436.
9. / Signature of the candidate.
10. / Remarks of the Guide
11. / Name and Designation of
11.1. Guide
11.2. Signature /
Dr. H.L.Uma,
Assistant Professor,
Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Government Dental College & Research Institute,
Bangalore.
11.3. Co-Guide
11.4. Signature / Dr. K.M.Kumarswamy,
Lecturer
Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Government Dental College & Research Institute,
Bangalore.
11.5. Head of the Department
11.6. Signature / Dr. Shashikala Kumari. V,
Professor & Head,
Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Government Dental College & Research Institute,

Bangalore.

12. / 12.1.Remarks of the Chairman and Principal
12.2. Signature:

4