ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Self-corrective T-loop design for differential

space closure
Rodrigo F. Viecilli
Indianapolis, Ind
Introduction: The current approach to measuring T-loop force systems in patients requiring differential
anchorage does not consider active unit angulations and steps during space closure. The angulations and
steps during movement introduced by rotation can considerably modify the force system acting on the teeth.
Methods: In this study, geometric modifications were determined during controlled tipping of the 6 anterior
teeth, where there was no movement of the posterior teeth, thus configuring a type A anchorage situation.
Results: An optimal beta-titanium alloy 0.017 x 0.025-in T-loop spring was designed by using a simulation
performed with LOOP software (dHAL Orthodontic Software, Athens, Greece) to allow compensation for
anterior unit-position effect on the final force system. The force systems produced by this T-loop spring with
and without geometric correction of the brackets have significant differences that should be considered in
the segmented arch approach to space closure. Conclusions: The effects of steps, angles, and vertical
forces were combined to produce an ideal T-loop design that would provide a more determinate force
system. The effects and force systems are estimates based on simplified locations of the centers of
resistance, assuming relatively constant behavior of the centers of rotation. These simplifications might differ
slightly from what happens in vivo. The finite element method or an accurate spring tester capable of
reproducing the geometric corrections should be used to ensure a precise force system. (Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:48-53)

ifferential tooth movement can be achieved by

applying different moments to anterior and
posterior units. This is proposed in the segmented arch approach to space closure.1-3 Moments
applied to the anterior unit must be sizeable enough to
prevent buccal movement of the roots; on the other
hand, moments on the posterior unit must be of enough
magnitude to induce translation. The moment-to-force
(MF) ratios, at the bracket, required for these movements have been described in various studies.4-8
The application of differential moments induces
differential stress in the periodontal ligament,9 which
can aid in anchorage control.10 In the segmented arch
approach to space closure, type A anchorage is established when the anterior unit (alpha) moves by controlled tipping and the posterior unit (beta) is kept
stable with translation, thus using differential stress. If
necessary, subsequent root movement of the anterior
unit and translation of the posterior teeth can be
performed.
T-loops are recommended to obtain the necessary
Combined PhD/orthodontics student.
Reprint requests to: Dr Rodrigo F. Viecilli, Department of Oral Facial
Development, Orthodontics Section, Indiana University School of Dentistry,
1121 W. Michigan St, Indianapolis, IN 46202; e-mail, rviecill@iuppi.edu.
Submitted, February 2004; revised and accepted, May 2004.
0889-5406/$32.00
Copyright 2006 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.05.025

48

force system to accomplish the objective described

above. The rationale behind this recommendation was
described by Burstone and Koenig.11 The effects of
gingival horizontal wire (G dimension), loop height (H
dimension), loop eccentricity, and gable bends to the
wire were also studied. G and H dimensions increase
the MF ratio delivered by the loop at the bracket. For a
constant H dimension, the increase of G dimension
approaches an MF ratio equal to the height of the loop.
Another effect of the increase in both G and H
dimensions is the decrease of the loops load-deflection
rate, reducing force variation during deactivation. The
authors also showed that an off-center T-loop placement, close to 1 unit, increases the MF ratio of this unit,
decreasing the MF ratio of the opposite unit. The
application of angulations to the loops can also increase
the MF ratios in 1 unit; the effect on the opposite unit
is a variable that depends on the geometry of the bends.
The eccentricity also introduces vertical forces in the
system, as predicted by static equilibrium.
In Group A anchorage, placement of the T-loop
near the alpha unit and the bends near the beta unit was
originally introduced by Burstone.3 In this study, a
composite T-loop made of 0.018-in beta-titanium alloy
(TMA) wire was used for the loop part (alpha) welded
to a 0.017 0.025-in TMA wire for the posterior part
(beta).
Melsen et al12 studied the effects of vertical forces

Viecilli 49

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volume 129, Number 1

relative to the center of resistance of the anterior unit in

type A anchorage using a composite T-loop. Estimation
of the vertical force moments is important when establishing the final design of a loop.
In most studies, the authors have considered force/
moment gauges as an experimental method for evaluating force systems in T-loops.3,11,13,14 Others have
considered theoretical approaches. Theoretical simulations with computers began almost 30 years ago.15,16
The finite element method is a theoretical alternative
for loop design evaluation.17 The LOOP software
(dHAL Orthodontic Software, Athens, Greece) uses a
theoretical approach.18,19 Another 3-dimensional software has also accurately evaluated vertical and Tshaped loops.20,21
Many different T-loop designs attempt to move
segments.3,14,22 The force system tables show the force
system on the anterior unit, assuming space closure
occurs on the same plane during movement. These
tables reproduce the actual force system when T-loops
providing symmetric movement are used (type B anchorage). In this situation, the geometry changes approximately the same amount on each segment, affecting the neutral position and moments of the loop
proportionally to bracket positions. This maintains the
force system similar to what it would be if the occlusal
planes were coincident during movement.
The previously published type A T-loop approaches
did not consider the geometric changes of angles and
steps between brackets during space closure.3,14 In
these studies, both terminals of the spring tester were
kept on the same plane during measurements.
The measurements in this study allow evaluation of
whether geometry changes between brackets could
significantly affect the force system during the desired
movement. It was hypothesized that angles and steps in
only 1 unit, such as in type A anchorage cases,
significantly affect the force system. An accurate force
system for clinical application should consider this
effect. LOOP software can simulate the effects of these
geometries in the T-loop force system, a simulation that
cannot always be performed with conventional spring
testers.
Our ultimate goal was to obtain a T-loop optimized
for rotation of the anterior unit. The loop is selfcorrective because, if its force system is measured with
both terminals on the same plane, it compensates for
system changes introduced by the bracket geometry
modification. To show this compensation, new measurements of the loop were taken simulating what could
be a real dynamic clinical environment, rotating the
anterior unit during space closure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Virtual 0.017 0.025-in TMA T-loops constructed

with LOOP software were used. The interbracket distance considered to establish the ideal loop behavior
was 23 mm.
A detailed description and the reliability of the
LOOP software were shown in a previous study.18 The
virtual wire consists of small segments of straight wire
in 2 dimensions (0.25 mm) connected to each other end
to end. Each segment is considered a long slender beam
that bends with the application of forces and moments.
When a loop is designed and activated, the deflection
results are mathematically calculated for each small
beam and extrapolated for the whole wire when it is
engaged to the brackets. The material of the segments is
assumed to behave in the elastic and proportional
range. Only bending moments and forces are considered to determine the final force system.
Type B symmetric T-loop values obtained by a
spring tester from another study14 and by LOOP software were compared, to confirm relative software
reliability and correspondence with experimental values (Table I). For this study, MF ratios are more
important than absolute values of moment and force.
The spring tester used to obtain the experimental results
was also described previously.23
For loop construction, the desired force system was
(1) a horizontal force of approximately 150 to 300
grams-force (gf; the force exerted by 1 g of mass in
standard Earth gravity, 9.806 m/s2), (2) a posterior MF
ratio of approximately 8.5-11 mm, and (3) an anterior
MF ratio of approximately 6-8 mm.
To determine the final loop design, a description of
the angulations and steps in the anterior unit during
space closure was necessary, so that changes in the
force system caused by the geometry could be evaluated by the software in each space-closure position. The
center of rotation of the anterior unit is estimated to be
near the apex of the roots, for a MF ratio of approximately 7. Although small variations in the center of
rotation are possible with very small variation on
anterior MF, a medium value was established for this
study. The MF variation for the posterior unit is based
on a center of resistance positioned occlusally when
compared with the anterior unit.
A simulation of anterior segment rotation (Fig 1)
was performed with an orthodontic calculator (Dental
Movement Analysis, Libra Ortodonzia, Arezzo, Italy).24
Steps and angles between anterior (canine bracket) and
posterior units were measured at the beginning and end
of movement. Then a linear geometry variation for each

50 Viecilli

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

January 2006

Comparison of experimental values of real T-loop14 and LOOP software values for virtual T-loop, with 0.017
0.025-in TMA wire; loop has 1-mm step between vertical legs, so couple of both horizontal forces must be
considered in equilibrium

Table I.

Activation
0
1
2
3
4
5
6

MF (mm)
experimental

MF (mm)
experimental

Fh (gf)
experimental

MF (mm)
software

MF (mm)
software

Fh (gf)
software

26.4
13.9
10.3
8.2
7.0
6.0

26.0
13.8
10.2
8.3
7.1
6.2

16.0
54.1
115.2
170.9
229.9
283.4
344.3

24.3
13.4
9.8
8.0
6.7
5.9

23.1
12.8
9.5
7.8
6.8
6.1

6.0
61.7
127.0
193.6
258.9
327.9
390.3

MF, MF ratio at bracket in alpha position; MF, MF ratio at the bracket in beta position; Fh, horizontal force.

millimeter of movement was assumed for the sake of

simplicity.
This change in geometry shows that the loop design
should aim for a force system with small compensations in beta (posterior) and alpha (anterior) MF ratios
during retraction, if we consider that measurements are
taken with bracket slots on the same plane. This means
that a correction for the changing bracket geometry
requires that the alpha MF ratio should decrease with
deactivation. The MF ratio in beta should increase with
deactivation.
Several trials for previously published basic loop
designs3,14,22 were evaluated for best performance in
the intended force system, considering geometric modifications. The trials showed that a loop with good
working range must be located next to the anterior
attachment and have no residual moment and only an
activation moment. To provide enough posterior moment, a curved V-bend along the posterior part of the
loop and a slight opening of the posterior ear were
made, initially keeping the same MF in alpha position
(dissociation). This provides a decrease in alpha MF
during deactivation, if both brackets are on the same
plane during movement. By using this design, the
anterior units MF ratioprovided by the loop activation moment combined with the posterior curved Vbend decreases with loop deactivation. Moreover,
beta MF ratio increases during loop deactivation.
After choosing the basic model, the final loop
dimensions were determined by iteration, optimizing
for maximum loop height and gingival extension,
considering patient comfort and maximizing the working range.
The T-loop chosen for an ideal activation moment
and a horizontal force has 8 mm of height and 16 mm
of G dimension and is activated 6 mm. The wire is
TMA 0.017 0.025 in.
The specific asymmetric loop position was chosen

Fig 1. Controlled tipping of anterior segment for 7 mm

space closure. CRes, center of resistance; CRot, center
of rotation.

to provide a maximum MF ratio to the anterior unit for

an activation of 6 mm. The vertical force moments in
respect to the center of resistance of the anterior unit
were considered during the iteration process. The anterior attachment used was a Burstone canine bracket
(Ormco, Glendora, Calif). In most cases, this avoids
vertical force moments at the beginning of the force
system application, in respect to the center of resistance
of the anterior unit. The LOOP software terminals are
equivalent to the mesial terminal of the molar tube and
distal terminal of the canine bracket. This distance was
set to 23 mm.
Figure 2 shows the loop dimensions before preactivation bends, and Figure 3 shows the loop with preactivation
bends inserted in the posterior unit. Figure 4 depicts the
T-loop activated 6 mm inserted in its terminals, with the
respective force system delivered to the teeth.
Once the design was defined, force system measurements were taken. First, the software brackets were
maintained on the same plane during movement to
measure the chosen T-loop force system in 1-mm
intervals, producing the Table III data. Then the same

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volume 129, Number 1

Viecilli 51

Fig 2. Loop dimensions without preactivation bends. G, T-loop apical wire; H, T-loop height; L,
T-loop length without preactivation bends; IBD, interbracket distance.

loop was evaluated, modifying the bracket geometries

at each millimeter of movement, according to values in
Table II. This process produced Table IV data.
RESULTS

Table I shows symmetric T-loop data comparison.

Although the theoretical horizontal forces are higher
than the experimental, relative values, important for
this study, are approximately the same.
Table II shows the angulations and steps during
space closure. The angles and steps are based on
controlled tipping of the anterior segment with a center
of rotation located at a medium horizontal position
above the roots of the 6 anterior teeth. Figure 1 shows
the simulation of anterior unit rotation. The angles and
steps during movement modify the geometry between
the 2 terminals, affecting the resulting moments on
each segment. This geometry development progressively increases the anterior MF ratio and decreases the
posterior MF ratio at the brackets.
Table III shows the force system of the T-loop
without the angles and steps between brackets; this is
the original approach in the literature to describe T-loop
force systems. As this table shows, the new loop design
can support the development of the geometry between
segments.
Table IV shows the force system of the same T-loop
with the geometric correction of brackets. Unlike Table
III, Table IV values include bracket modifications
induced by controlled tipping, which occurs clinically.
Table IV represents the clinical T-loop force system
acting on the patients teeth.
DISCUSSION

When comparing the values in Table I, we can see

that the MF values are similar. Small differences

Fig 3. Loop passive position inserted in beta unit with

preactivation bends. Radius of curvature decreases
near beta unit. Small opening of distal ear of loop also
increases moment in beta and decreases force level for
a 6-mm activation. IBD, interbracket distance.

occurred as expected, because of the mathematical

calculations of the software and the standard deviation
inherent to the error of the spring tester and spring
manufacturing. LOOP software reports higher forces,
as previously pointed out by Halazonetis.18 It displays
values higher by 12%, as seen in Table I. This might be
a correction factor for the force system tables, in which
an 88% horizontal force value has been included.
In the T-loop force system, the geometric modifications will tend to significantly increase the moment
on the anterior unit and decrease the moment on the
posterior unit. Moreover, these geometric changes will
affect the neutral position of the loop. This can be
biologically and clinically beneficial because the load-

52 Viecilli

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

January 2006

Table III.

Force system of T-loop without geometry

correction of brackets

Fig 4. Force system of T-loop activated 6 mm delivered

to teeth. Higher moments are acting in beta. Activation
moment of spring in alpha provides controlled tipping.
Couple of vertical forces compensates for moment
differential: equilibrium. Burstone canine bracket is
point of anterior insertion. Auxiliary molar tube is point
of posterior insertion.
Table II.

Angle and step variations during space closure

(tipping at apices of maxillary incisors is assumed)

Space closure (mm)

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

Step (mm)

Angle ()

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4

0
3.2
6.4
9.6
12.8
16.0
19.2
22.2

deflection rate of the system will decrease. Clinically,

the values of Table II can help identify the position of
the center of rotation. For instance, when the movement
approaches uncontrolled tipping, angulations and steps
have a higher rate of increase per millimeter of space
closure. If the movement approaches translation, fewer
angulations and steps are observed. These examples
suggest that loop adjustment might be necessary to
keep the center of rotation at the desired position.
When a starting MF of 8.7 on the posterior unit, as
shown in Table IV, still does not provide translation, it
is assumed that the distribution of periodontal stress on
the posterior teeth will still be more uniform than in the
anterior unit, because the canines slightly displace the
center of resistance apically.
As seen in Table III, this loop provides a small rate
of increase in beta MF ratio at the beginning of
deactivation and an even smaller rate of decrease in
alpha moment during deactivation, making it ideal to
support the modifications in the force system introduced by geometry changes, as shown in Table IV. The
neutral position in Table III is 3 mm. Considering

Space closure
(mm)

MF
(mm)

MF
(mm)

Fv
(gf)

Fh
(gf)

88% Fh
(gf)

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

6.3
6.1
6.0
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.7

8.7
9.6
10.7
12.1
13.9
16.6
20.7
28.7

33.9
45.9
57.6
69.6
81.8
94.3
107.1
120.1

326.0
291.4
258.9
225.6
192.2
157.5
121.4
83.5

286.9
256.4
227.8
198.5
169.1
138.6
106.8
73.5

MF, MF ratio at bracket in alpha position; MF, MF ratio at

bracket in beta position; Fv , vertical force in alpha position; Fh,
horizontal force; 88% Fh, correction of horizontal force based on
software error.
Table IV. Force system of same T-loop with geometry
correction of brackets
Space closure
(mm)

MF
(mm)

MF
(mm)

Fv
(gf)

Fh
(gf)

88% Fh
(gf)

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0

6.3
6.6
6.9
7.2
7.5
7.8
8.1
8.6

8.7
8.9
9.1
9.4
9.7
10.2
10.8
11.6

33.9
29.5
23.4
21.8
19.3
18.1
17.9
15.7

326.0
307.0
290.5
272.0
253.5
233.7
212.5
190.6

286.9
270.1
255.6
239.4
223.1
205.7
187.0
167.7

MF, MF ratio at bracket in alpha position; MF, MF ratio at

bracket in beta position; Fv , vertical force in alpha position; Fh,
horizontal force; 88% Fh, correction of horizontal force based on
software error.

angles and steps (Table IV), neutral position is reduced

so that the loop exerts an acceptable horizontal force
until the end of space closure. After 7 mm of space
closure, the loop still provides 191 gf of horizontal
force, with MF of 8.6 mm delivered to the anterior unit.
The posterior unit has an MF of 11.6 mm. It is
important to consider the moment of the couple of the
horizontal forces separated by the step between the
brackets when analyzing equilibrium of the appliance.
This explains the significant reduction in the vertical
force values in Table IV.
The intrusive forces acting posterior to the center of
resistance in the end of space closure might assist in
lowering MF ratios in alpha, keeping the force system
effective. If, during the last millimeters of deactivation,
space closure becomes more difficult, a possible solution is to add a chain elastic or spring between the units,
providing about 50 gf to lower the MF ratios.
This loop design is similar to the one introduced by

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volume 129, Number 1

Burstone in his original article3; however, there are

small changes in dimensions and in the placement of
bends, as well as in force system behavior during
deactivation. Opening the anterior ear of the loop, as in
the original design, would allow us to decrease H and G
dimensions yet would increase MF ratio in the anterior
unit during deactivation. An increase in MF ratio of the
anterior unit can reduce working range, because this
effect will already be a result of the geometry development during space closure. Although the new loop
provides a small reduction of the anterior units MF
ratio (Table III), the geometry affects the final force
system, ultimately increasing it (Table IV).
Although this loop is larger than other T-loops
discussed in the literature, patient comfort is not jeopardized, because in the anterior region the patient
usually has enough space to place a larger loop without
significant interference of the soft tissues.
Plans for future studies on this topic include an
evaluation of this appliances clinical behavior and the
development of a new loop design for posterior protraction. Further investigation on root movement strategies would also be beneficial.
CONCLUSIONS

In this study, the effect of steps, angles, and vertical

forces was conbined to produce an ideal T-loop design,
aiming to provide a more determinate force system.
The effects and force systems are estimations based on
simplified locations of the centers of resistance, assuming relatively constant behavior of the centers of
rotation. These simplifications might differ slightly
from what happens in vivo. The finite element method
or an accurate spring tester capable of reproducing the
geometric corrections might be beneficial to ensure a
precise force system.
The author thanks Professor Charles J. Burstone,
University of Connecticut, for his inestimable help and
ideas and Dr Demetrios Halazonetis, University of
Athens, for accepting the suggestions to improve the
software that made this article possible.
REFERENCES
1. Burstone CJ. Rationale of the segmented arch. Am J Orthod
1962;48:805-22.
2. Burstone CJ. The mechanics of the segmented arch technique.
Angle Orthod 1966;36:99-120.
3. Burstone CJ. The segmented arch approach to space closure.
Am J Orthod 1982;82:361-78.

Viecilli 53

4. Christiansen RL, Burstone CJ. Centers of rotation within the

periodontal space. Am J Orthod 1969;55:351-69.
5. Burstone CJ, Pryputniewicz RJ. Holographic determination of
centers of rotation produced by orthodontic forces. Am J Orthod
1980;77:396-409.
6. Vanden Bulcke MM, Burstone CJ, Sachdeva RCL, Dermaut LR.
Location of centers of resistance for anterior teeth during
retraction using the laser reflection technique. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:375-84.
7. Tanne K, Koenig HA, Burstone CJ. Moment to force ratios and
the center of rotation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:
426-31.
8. Ngerl H, Burstone CJ, Becker B, Kubein-Messenburg D.
Centers of rotation with transverse forces: an experimental study.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99:337-45.
9. Tanne K, Sakuda M, Burstone CJ. Three-dimensional finite
element analysis for stress in the periodontal tissue by orthodontic forces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:499-505.
10. Hart A, Taft L, Greenberg SN. The effectiveness of differential
moments in establishing and maintaining anchorage. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;102:434-42.
11. Burstone CJ, Koenig HA. Optimizing anterior and canine retraction. Am J Orthod 1976;70:1-19.
12. Melsen B, Fotis V, Burstone CJ. Vertical force considerations in
differential space closure. J Clin Orthod 1990;24:678-83.
13. Hoenigl KD, Freudenthaler J, Marcotte MR, Bantleon HP. The
centered T-loopa new way of preactivation. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:149-53.
14. Burstone C, van Steenbergen E, Hanley KJ. Modern edgewise
mechanics and the segmented arch technique. Glendora (CA):
Ormco; 1995.
15. Koenig HA, Burstone CJ. Analysis of generalized curved beams
of orthodontic applications. J Biomech 1974;7:429-35.
16. DeFranco JC, Koenig HA, Burstone CJ. Three-dimensional large
displacement analysis of orthodontic appliances. J Biomech
1976;9:793-801.
17. Haskell BS, Spencer WA, Day M. Auxiliary springs in continuous arch treatment: part 1. An analytical study employing the
finite-element method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;
98:387-97.
18. Halazonetis DJ. Design and test orthodontic loops using your
computer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:346-8.
19. Halazonetis DJ. Understanding orthodontic loop preactivation.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:237-41.
20. Raboud DW, Faulkner MG, Lipsett AW, Haberstock DL. Threedimensional effects in retraction appliance design. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:378-92.
21. Raboud D, Faulkner MG, Lipsett AW. A segmental approach for
large three-dimensional rod deformations. Int J Solids Structures
1996;33:1137-56.
22. Marcotte MR. Biomechanics in orthodontics. Philadelphia: BC
Decker; 1990.
23. Solonche DJ, Burstone CJ, Vanderby R. A device for determining the mechanical behavior of orthodontic appliances. IEEE
Trans Biomed Eng 1977;24:538-9.
24. Fiorelli G, Melsen B. Biomechanics in orthodontics CD-ROM,
version 2.0. Arezzo, Italy: Libra Ortodonzia; 2001.