Abstract Coated archwires and ceramic brackets have been developed to improve facial esthetics during orthodontic treatment. However, their mechanical behavior has been shown to be different from metallic archwires and brackets. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the deflection forces in coated nickel-titanium (NiTi) and esthetic archwires combined with ceramic brackets. Material and Methods Non-coated NiTi (NC), rhodium coated NiTi (RC), teflon coated NiTi (TC), epoxy coated NiTi (EC), fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP), and the three different conventional brackets metal-insert polycrystalline ceramic (MI-PC), polycrystalline ceramic (PC) and monocrystalline ceramic (MC) were used. The specimens were set up on a clinical simulation device and evaluated in a Universal Testing Machine (Instron). An acrylic device, representative of the right maxillary central incisor was buccolingually activated and the unloading forces generated were recorded at 3, 2, 1 and 0.5 mm. The speed of the testing machine was 2 mm/min. ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to compare the different archwires and brackets. Results The brackets presented the following decreasing force ranking: monocrystalline, polycrystalline and polycrystalline metal-insert. The decreasing force ranking of the archwires was: rhodium coated NiTi (RC), non-coated NiTi (NC), teflon coated NiTi (TC), epoxy coated NiTi (EC) and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP). At 3 mm of unloading the FRP archwire had a plastic deformation and produced an extremely low force in 2; 1 and 0.5 mm of unloading. Conclusion Combinations of the evaluated archwires and brackets will produce a force ranking proportional to the combination of their individual force rankings.

ABSTRACT Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the deflection forces of Nitinol orthodontic wires placed in different types of brackets: metallic, reinforced polycarbonate with metallic slots, sapphire, passive and active self-ligating, by assessing strength values variation according to gradual increase in wire diameter and deflection and comparing different combinations in the different deflections. Material and Methods: Specimens were set in a clinical simulation model and evaluated in a Universal Testing Machine (INSTRON 3342), using the ISO 15841 protocol. Data were subjected to One-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey tests (p<0.05). Results: Self-ligating brackets presented the most similar behavior to each other. For conventional brackets there was no consistent behavior for any of the deflections studied. Conclusions: Self-ligating brackets presented the most consistent and predictable results while conventional brackets, as esthetic brackets, showed very different patterns of forces. Self-ligating brackets showed higher strength in all deflections when compared with the others, in 0.020-inch wires.