Introduccion: comparar la resistencia friccional estatica y dinamica in vitro entre brackets ceramicos y alambres de acero inoxidable con recubrimiento vitreo aplicado por el metodo Sol-Gel y sin el. Metodos: se prepararon 58 alambres de acero inoxidable AISI 304 de 0.016 x 0.016 con recubrimiento vitreo aplicado por Sol-Gel y sin el. Posteriormente se evaluo la resistencia a la friccion estatica y dinamica in vitro de los alambres sobre brackets ceramicos de zafiro monocristalino y se caracterizaron las superficies en contacto por microscopia optica y electronica de barrido (SEM). Resultados: se encontraron diferencias estadisticamente significativas entre ambos grupos tanto para la fuerza de friccion estatica (p = 0,000) como dinamica (p = 0,001). El grupo de los alambres recubiertos presento una fuerza de friccion estatica y dinamica mayor (estatica: 1,78 ± 0,44 N, dinamica: 1,75 ± 0,49 N) que el grupo sin recubrimientos (estatica: 1,37 ± 0,31 N, dinamica: 1,41 ± 0,27 N). La caracterizacion por SEM mostro que se producen defectos superficiales en los recubrimientos despues de las pruebas de friccion. Conclusion: los recubrimientos evaluados no mostraron mejor comportamiento friccional sobre brackets de zafiro monocristalino cuando son comparados con el grupo control. ABSTRACT. Introduction: to compare the in vitro static and dynamic frictional resistance between ceramic brackets and stainless steel wires with and without glass coatings applied by sol-gel method. Methods: 58 commercial stainless steel orthodontic wires AISI 304 (0.016 x 0.016 inch) were prepared with and without vitreous coating applied by Sol- Gel method. The in vitro static and dynamic frictional resistance of the wires on the mono-crystalline ceramic brackets were evaluated; also, the wire surfaces were characterized by means of Optical Microscopy and scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). Results: statistically significant differences were found between both groups under static (p = 0.000) as well as dynamic (p = 0.001) friction test. The friction values found in the coated group were higher (Static friction: 1.78 ± 0.44 N, Dynamic friction: 1.75 ± 0.49 N) than the group with no coating (Static friction: 1.37 ± 0.31 N, Dynamic friction: 1.41 ± 0.27 N). Characterization by SEM showed surface defects in both groups after the friction tests. Conclusion: the evaluated coatings did not perform better in terms of frictional behavior on sapphire mono-crystalline ceramic brackets when compared with the control group.