SPECIAL ARTICLE

Ideal arch force systems: A center-of-resistance perspective

Demetrios J. Halazonetis, DMD, MS Athens, Greece The analysis of force systems from an ideal arch has shown that the ratio of the moments produced by a straight wire connecting two malaligned brackets depends on the ratio of the angulations of the brackets to the interbracket axis. Although this result permits assessment of the relative forces and moments, prediction of future tooth movement requires knowledge of the position of center of resistance as well. In this study, the forces and moments produced by a straight portion of an arch wire were transferred from the brackets to the center of resistance. The purpose was to compare the force system at the brackets to the force system at the center of resistance and to assess whether bracket geometry can be applied to predict initial tooth movement. A computer model was used to simulate two teeth connected by a straight portion of wire. Forces and moments were calculated with the use of equations derived from elementary beam theory. The results show that the force system at the center of resistance may be of an entirely different geometry type than that at the bracket. Factors that inuence the force system include the interbracket distance, the angulation of the teeth, the length of the tooth root, and the width of the bracket. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:256-64.)

he analysis of force systems from an ideal arch has contributed signicantly to the eld of biomechanics. Burstone and Koenig, in a nowclassic article,1 investigated the simplest case of a two-tooth segment, in which an ideal (unbent) wire is placed between two malaligned brackets. In such a situation, the wire will, in general, apply a force and a moment at each bracket (Fig. 1). The forces will always be equal and opposite, as the laws of static equilibrium dictate. The relative magnitude of the moments, however, cannot be directly determined on the basis of the laws of statics. One of the main conclusions of Burstone and Koenig was that the relative magnitude of the moments (the ratio MA/MB) depends exclusively on the ratio of angulation of each bracket to the interbracket axis (A/B). This was a signicant result because the clinician could now determine the relative magnitude and direction of all forces and moments for any two-tooth segment by measuring the bracket angulations. Absolute force and moment values would require knowledge of interbracket distance and wire properties as well. For a two-tooth segment, the angulation ratio A/B can assume a value in the range 1 to 1.
In private practice, Athens, Greece. Reprint requests to: Dr. Demetrios J. Halazonetis, 89 Rodon Ave., Ekali 145 65, Greece. e-mail: dhal@eexi.gr Copyright 1998 by the American Association of Orthodontists. 0889-5406/98/$5.00 0 8/1/79597

Fig. 1. Ideal arch connecting two malaligned brackets. Moment and force are applied at each bracket. Ratio of moments (MA/MB) depends on ratio of bracket angulations (A/B).

Burstone and Koenig selected six characteristic values in this range and described the force systems of each resulting tooth conguration in detail. The A/B values selected were 1.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.75, 1.0; the tooth congurations were named class I, II, III, IV, V, and VI geometry, respectively (the word class was used to denote type and should not be confused with the Angle classication). The force system of each geometry is characteristic of its class. For example, in a class I geometry the moments at the two brackets are equal, whereas in a class VI geometry the moments are equal in magnitude but

256

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 114, No. 3

Halazonetis 257

Fig. 2. Class I geometry. A, Moment on canine bracket tends to tip tooth clockwise. Intrusive force on canine bracket tends to tip tooth counterclockwise because it is applied mesial to center of resistance. What is the resulting force system at the center of resistance and, hence, the initial tooth movement? B, Force system applied at the canine bracket has been transferred to center of resistance. The new moment added is a result of the tipping effect of the force. Its magnitude is equal to the magnitude of the force multiplied by distance d. The relative magnitudes of the two moments shown will determine the direction of initial tooth tipping.

opposite in direction. The reader is referred to the original article1 for further details. The ultimate purpose of determining the force systems from an ideal arch is to predict future movement of teeth. To this end, the concept of center of resistance has been helpful. The center of resistance is the only point on the tooth at which a force will cause bodily translation, whatever its direction may be (some restrictions may apply2). Therefore if the forces and moments acting on a tooth are known at the center of resistance, the future tooth position and angulation can be directly estimated. Unfortunately, the elegant results of Burstone and Koenig describe forces and moments that act on the brackets. These forces cannot be used to predict how the teeth will move unless the position of the center of resistance is also taken into account.3 As an example, consider Fig. 2, which shows a class I geometry, because the brackets are angulated the same relative to the line that joins them. A class I geometry results in equal moments and equal but opposite forces; therefore an intrusive force and a clockwise moment are applied by the wire on the

canine bracket. It is evident that if we consider the force alone, it will tend to tip the tooth mesially because it is applied mesial to the center of resistance. In contrast, the moment tends to tip the tooth distally. Is the mesial tipping tendency of the force small relative to the clockwise moment applied by the wire, or is it of a magnitude sufcient to counterbalance or even exceed the moment? What do you think will be the resulting initial tooth movement? To answer these questions it is helpful to consider a force system equivalent to the one shown but acting at the center of resistance. To nd this force system we must transfer the force and moment from the bracket to the center of resistance. The laws of physics dictate that the moment is a free vector and can be moved to any point without change. The force, however, is a sliding vector and can only be moved along its line of action. To move the force perpendicular to its line of action, as is needed here, we must add a new moment to our force system. The magnitude of this moment is equal to the magnitude of the force multiplied by the perpendicular distance that the force is moved. The equivalent force system at

258 Halazonetis

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics September 1998

Table I. Moment to force ratios (M/F) per millimeter of interbracket distance for each of the six basic geometries
Class I II III IV V VI Moment ratio MA/MB 1.0 0.8 0.5 0.0 0.4 1.0 Angle ratio k A/B 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.75 1.0 M/F ratio at A 0.50 0.44 0.33 0.00 0.67 M/F ratio at B 0.50 0.56 0.67 1.00 1.67

Fig. 3. Class I geometry. Canine and premolar tipped mesially 12, interbracket distance 7 mm. Moment ratio (MCanine/MPremolar) at brackets is 1. Moment ratio at center of resistance is 0.14. In this and all subsequent gures, relative magnitude of the moments is depicted by radius of curved arrows. Moments in the same gure may be compared in this way, but moments in different gures are not always drawn to same scale. Actual force and moment values depend on size and material of the wire. Each gure shows force system at bracket and equivalent force system at center of resistance. Only one of these force systems is used to assess tooth movement, but both are drawn on the gure to facilitate comparison.

the center of resistance is therefore composed of a force equal in magnitude to the original, a moment equal in magnitude to the original, and a second moment equal in magnitude to the magnitude of the force times the perpendicular distance of the center of resistance to the line of action of the force. It is to be hoped that this new tipping moment is relatively small, so that the direct relationship between the angle ratio (A/B) and moment ratio (MA/MB) would hold, at least approximately, at the center of resistance as well. This would greatly simplify matters because we could use the bracket geometry to directly infer tooth movement. The purpose of this article was to investigate to what extent the force systems in a two-tooth segment retain their characteristic geometry type when transferred from the level of the brackets to the center of resistance of the teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS A computer program was developed to simulate the situation of two teeth connected by a straight portion of

wire. Measurements of teeth were obtained from a textbook of dental anatomy.4 The brackets were positioned perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth 4 mm from the cusp tip of the premolar and 4.5 mm from the cusp tip of the canine. The brackets were narrow, so that the force from the wire acted at the center of the bracket slot. No friction was assumed, and the wire deection was considered small, thus producing forces perpendicular to the interbracket axis. The exact position of the center of resistance is still debated in the literature, but it is considered to lie at one third to one half of the root length as measured from the alveolar crest. For the purposes of this study, the center of resistance was assumed to lie at 40% of the distance of the anatomic root, as measured from the cervix of the tooth, which was assumed to be coincident with the alveolar support of the tooth.2 The distance of the center of resistance to the bracket slot was 13 mm for the canine and 10 mm for the premolar. The computer program allowed the detailed positioning of teeth relative to each other and calculated the forces and moments at both the bracket level and the center of resistance. The forces at the brackets were calculated with the use of the equations derived in the Appendix. These equations produce the same results reported by Burstone and Koenig1 and are based on mechanical engineering principles. To transfer the force system from the bracket to the center of resistance, a tipping moment was added, equal to the force times the perpendicular distance of the center of resistance to the line of action of the force. RESULTS

Differences between the force system at the brackets and the force system at the center of resistance only concern the moments. These may be larger or smaller, depending on whether the tipping effect of the force, applied off-center to the center of resistance, counteracts or augments the moment applied by the wire. The signicance of the tipping moment to the overall force system depends on the following factors. First is the angulation of the teeth. The tipping moment is equal to the magnitude of the force multiplied by the distance of the center of resistance

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 114, No. 3

Halazonetis 259

Fig 4. Relationship between moment ratio at center of resistance and inclination of teeth in class I geometry depicted in Fig. 3. Moment ratio covers the range from 1 to 0.4 as the teeth are tipped from 0 to 30. As the interbracket distance increases (interbracket distances of 7, 14 and 21 mm are shown), the effect of angulation is less pronounced.

Fig 5. Class I geometry. Canine and premolar upright but at different occlusogingival levels. Interbracket distance 7 mm, height difference of bracket slots 2 mm. Moment ratio (MCanine/MPremolar) at brackets is 1. Moment ratio at center of resistance is 0.03.

Fig. 6. Class III geometry. Canine tipped mesially 12, premolar upright, interbracket distance 7 mm. Moment ratio (MPremolar/MCanine) at brackets is 0.5. Moment ratio MPremolar/MCanine at center of resistance is 1.18 (or inverse ratio, MCanine/MPremolar 0.85).

to the line of action of the force. Therefore, the more a tooth is angulated, the greater this distance and the greater the tipping moment. Second is the magnitude of the force. The

smaller the force, the smaller the tipping moment it produces. Third is the magnitude of the original moment applied by the wire. The larger this moment is, the

260 Halazonetis

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics September 1998

Fig. 7. Relationship between moment ratio at center of resistance and inclination of canine in class III geometry depicted in Fig. 6. Moment ratio covers range from 1 to 0.3 as canine is tipped from 15 (mesial tip) to 15 (distal tip). As interbracket distance increases (interbracket distances of 7, 14 and 21 mm are shown), effect of angulation is less pronounced. To keep moment ratio at value less than 1, inverse moment ratio is shown for values less than 10.5 of tip at 7 mm interbracket distance.

Fig. 8. Class IV geometry. Canine tipped distally 6, premolar 12 mesially, interbracket distance 7 mm. Moment ratio (MCanine/MPremolar) at brackets is 0 because only an intrusive force is applied at bracket of canine. Moment ratio at center of resistance is 0.15.

less effect the tipping moment will have on the overall force system. Because the last two factors act in opposite ways, their combined effect can be described with the moment-to-force (M/F) ratio. The smaller the moment-to-force ratio, the larger the expected inuence of the tipping moment. M/F ratios of the force system produced by an ideal arch wire placed between two brackets depend on the interbracket distance. M/F ratios per millimeter of interbracket distance were calculated for each of the six basic geometries with the use of equations (9) and (10) and are shown in Table I. The following examples illustrate the differences between the force systems, with particular attention paid to differences in the moment ratio (MA/MB) at the brackets and the center of resistance. A gure accompanies each example, showing the force system at the bracket and the equivalent force system at the center of resistance. Only one of these force systems is used to assess tooth movement, but both were drawn on the same gure to facilitate comparison.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 114, No. 3

Halazonetis 261

Class I

A class I geometry results when both the canine and the rst premolar are tipped mesially (Fig. 3). The moments applied at the brackets are equal (moment ratio 1), but they are signicantly altered by the off-center application of the forces, resulting in a moment ratio of 0.14 at the center of resistance for the 12 tip illustrated here. As the teeth are tipped mesially even more, the perpendicular distance of each force to the corresponding center of resistance will steadily increase. When this distance becomes equal to the M/F ratio of the force system at the bracket, the canine will sustain only the intrusive force and no moment. For an interbracket distance of 7 mm, the M/F ratio at the bracket is 3.5 mm. A tip of approximately 16 was found to be sufcient to result in bodily movement (intrusion) of the canine. In contrast, the moment at the center of resistance of the premolar was almost twice the moment applied at the bracket. The force systems at the center of resistance resemble a class IV geometry. Figure 4 shows the relationship between the moment ratio at the center of resistance and the angulation of the teeth. Although the moment ratio of a class I geometry at the brackets is 1 and independent of the degree of angulation of the teeth, the moment ratio at the center of resistance may vary from 1 to almost 0.4, as the teeth tip from 0 to 30. A larger interbracket distance reduces the effect considerably, but it is interesting to note that a class I geometry may never produce equal moments at the center of resistance of the two teeth. As the teeth move under the inuence of these force systems, they are expected to become upright at different rates as a result of different moment magnitudes. For this reason, a class I geometry can be considered inherently unstable. A class I geometry may also be produced if the two teeth have no angulation but are at a different occlusogingival level (Fig. 5). In this case it is the angulation of the interbracket axis that results in forces not directed through the center of resistance. A height difference of 2.0 mm between the bracket slots was sufcient to counteract (and slightly exceed) the moment at the canine, leaving only a mesially directed intrusive force.
Class III

resistance and no difference is observed between the bracket force system and the center-of-resistance force system. The canine is, however, tipped to the mesial, and a signicant reduction in the magnitude of the applied moment is noted. The total force system at the center of resistance of the teeth resembles a class II geometry more than a class III geometry. Figure 7 shows the relationship between the moment ratio at the center of resistance and the angulation of the canine. As the canine is tipped mesially, the moments at the center of resistance tend to become equal, and a class I geometry force system is produced at a 10.5 angulation. Further tipping reduces the canine moment below the premolar moment, and a class II or class IIItype force system is reintroduced, but of an opposite conguration.
Class IV

The smallest M/F ratio occurs at geometry class IV, in which the moment at one of the brackets is zero (Fig. 8). The bracket geometry suggests that the canine should sustain pure intrusion. However, because the bracket and tooth are angulated relative to the interbracket axis, the force will be applied off-center to the center of resistance, and a tipping moment will be introduced. This moment will be proportional to the degree of tooth angulation. Therefore the expected initial movement of the canine will consist of intrusion and distal tipping. In contrast to class IV, the largest M/F ratios occur with a class V geometry (Table I). Thus, although the force system at the center of resistance will be quantitatively different from the bracket force system, the expected differences are small. No differences are expected in a class VI conguration because no forces, only moments, are applied, so the position of the center of resistance will not affect the initial movement of the teeth.
DISCUSSION

Class III geometry is characterized by zero angulation of one tooth relative to the interbracket axis (Fig. 6). Because the premolar is upright, the force from the wire passes through the center of

The analysis of forces from an ideal arch in the case of a two-tooth segment1 has provided us with easily memorized guidelines to apply in clinical practice. Unfortunately, these results represent force systems at the bracket and cannot be used directly to predict future movement of teeth. In this study, the force systems were transferred to the center of resistance because this point offers an advantage in that tooth movements can be directly predicted. The ndings of this study should be viewed in the

262 Halazonetis

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics September 1998

light of the simplications and assumptions made. The main assumptions were in the derivation of the equations from which the forces and moments were calculated. The equations require the wire deection to be small and disregard any friction or binding of the wire in the bracket slot. Results achieved with large-deection theory are not signicantly different, but friction may introduce great horizontal forces.5 The results show that the moment ratios that characterize the six basic geometries are signicantly altered when examined at the center of resistance. Factors identied as affecting the difference between the force systems follow. First is interbracket distance. The smaller this distance, the smaller the M/F ratio and the greater the effect of off-center application of forces. The larger the interbracket distance, the more similar the force systems at the bracket and the center of resistance. Second is angulation of teeth. The larger the angulation of the teeth relative to the interbracket axis, the larger the tipping effect of the forces. Third is length of root and extent of periodontal support. These factors affect the distance of the center of resistance from the bracket. The larger this distance, the larger the difference between the bracket and center of resistance force systems. Fourth is width of bracket. The effect of bracket width is not straightforward. Increased bracket width transfers the point-of-force application away from the long axis of the tooth (especially if the wire lls the bracket slot and binds in the distal or mesial part of a wide twin) but also decreases interbracket distance considerably. Although the forces produced by an ideal arch can be estimated from the bracket geometry, the future movement of teeth is more difcult to predict. The ndings of this study show that the geometry information should not be used to infer movement because the force system at the center of resistance may correspond to an entirely different class, perhaps one even further away than the neighboring geometry classes. Figure 4 and Figure 7 illustrate this point. Consider Figure 4, which depicts a class I tooth geometry, in which the moments applied by the wire to the two brackets are equal. We can see that if the interbracket distance is 7 mm, a class I geometry force system is no longer present if the teeth are angled more than 2. Instead, a class II geometry is established at the center of resistance. At 6 the

teeth would behave as if they had been subjected to a class III force system, in which the moment at one tooth is double the moment at the other. A class IV force system develops at 16; one tooth sustains no moment at all (these are approximate values valid for this model; the exact angulations depend on anatomic characteristics of individual cases). The orthodontists difculty in assessing a clinical situation is apparent from these small differences in angulation. Fortunately, in cases of large interbracket distances the differences between the bracket and center-of-resistance force systems diminish. In the clinical situation we can be more condent when teeth are apartfor example, during retraction of a canine or when a second molar is brought upright in a case of rst-molar loss.
CONCLUSION The ndings of this study can be summarized as follows: The force systems developed by an ideal arch cannot be used directly to estimate tooth movement. They should rst be transferred to the center of resistance of the teeth. The force systems at the center of resistance may differ signicantly from the force systems at the brackets. Factors that accentuate the differences include short interbracket distance, large tooth angulations, long roots, and loss of alveolar support. These conclusions imply that the clinical assessment of even initial tooth movements is very difcult. As the teeth move under the inuence of the forces, the tooth geometry and force systems may change. The dynamic behavior of each geometry class will be the subject of another study.
REFERENCES 1. Burstone CJ, Koenig HA. Force systems from an ideal arch. Am J Orthod 1974;65:270-89. 2. Halazonetis DJ. Computer experiments using a two-dimensional model of tooth support. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996;109:598-606. 3. Kusy RP, Tulloch JFC. Analysis of moment/force ratios in the mechanics of tooth movement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986;90:127-31. 4. Ash MM. Wheelers an atlas of tooth form. Philadelphia: WB Saunders; 1984. p. 62-64. 5. Koenig HA, Burstone CJ. Force systems from an ideal arch: large deection considerations. Angle Orthod 1989;59:11-6. 6. Koenig HA, Burstone CJ. Analysis of generalized curved beams for orthodontic applications. J Biomech 1974;7:429-35. 7. Beer FP, Johnston ER Jr. Mechanics of materials. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1981. p. 63-65, 598.

APPENDIX It is not clear how the statically indeterminate problem of calculating the forces and moments was solved by Burstone and Koenig,1 but it seems that the relatively simple two-tooth ideal arch segment was approached in the context of a more generalized anal-

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Volume 114, No. 3

Halazonetis 263

Fig. 9. Deection and slope at end of cantilever beam loaded with either a force or a moment. E is Youngs modulus of elasticity and depends on the material of the beam. I is the moment of inertia and depends on the geometry of the cross-section of the beam.

Fig. 10. Force system on beam held by angled bracket at one end and rigidly supported at the other.

Fig. 11. Force system on beam held by angled brackets at both ends can be derived from principle of superposition. This principle states that effect of a combined loading on a structure can be obtained through separate determinations of effects of various loads and combination of results obtained.7

ysis.6 Probably for this reason no simple equations were presented, but the calculations for the actual moment and force values required several steps and the use of a reference table. A simpler procedure that could be more easily incorporated in a computer program was required for this study. With the use of elementary beam theory,7 a set of equations was derived with which to calculate the moment and force values directly. These equations produce the same results as before but illustrate the relationship between the variables more concisely.

Fig. 9 shows the results derived from elementary beam theory7 when a cantilever beam is loaded with a force or a moment. An orthodontic wire may be considered a beam placed between two brackets. In the general situation, each bracket exerts a force and a moment on the wire. First we assume the wire is rigidly attached to a support on the left and inserted into an angled bracket on the right (Fig. 10). The total displacement of the wire as a result of the force and the moment acting on it is zero. Therefore:

264 Halazonetis FL 3 ML 2 2 0 f M F L 3EI 2EI 3

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics September 1998

(1)

MB

4EI ( B A / 2) L

(7)

Assuming that the angulation of the bracket is small, angle will be almost equal to its tangent (slope). Therefore: FL 2 ML 2EI EI (2)

From equations (5), (6), and (7) the following (already known) general results can be derived: 1. The ratio between the moments at the two ends of the wire is dependent on the ratio of the bracket angulations and not on the interbracket distance: MA ( A B / 2) 2k 1 M B ( B A / 2) 2k where k is the ratio A/B. This moment ratio is characteristic for each of the six basic geometries. 2. The M/F ratio at each bracket is proportional to the interbracket distance and depends on the ratio of the bracket angulations: M A 2L ( A B / 2) 4k 2 L FA 3 ( A B) 6k 6 M B 2L ( B A / 2) 4 2k L FB 3 ( A B) 6k 6 (9) (10) (8)

From equations (1) and (2) we calculate the force and moment: F 6EI L2 4EI L (3) (4)

The force and moment at the rigidly supported end of the wire are found by applying the laws of static equilibrium. The force will be F and the moment M/2. When the wire is held by brackets at both ends, the total forces and moments may be found by means of vector addition according to the principle of superposition (Fig. 11). From equation (3): F B F A From equation (4): MA 4EI ( A B / 2) L (6) 6EI ( A B) L2 (5)

The M/F ratio is not a pure number but is measured in units of length. It represents the perpendicular distance from the line of action of the force, where the force system consists of a pure force and zero moment. If the center of resistance of the tooth happens to lie at such a distance, the tooth will translate bodily with no tipping.