Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
coil springs
of open
Open coil springs, force-deflection characteristics,wire size, lumen size, coil pitch
494
Volume 85
Number 6
Orthodontic
force
characteristics
n
Compression
of open
coil
Hi-T
Wire Diameter
Lumen =0.030
springs
495
=0.009
4mm
Fig. 2. Force-deflection
curve of an open coil spring. When first
compressed,
the curves
generated
were nonlinear,
as seen on
the right. The straight-line
or linear portion
of the curve is the
clinically
important
range.
Fig. 1. Open
on a test
machine.
MATERIALS
AND METHODS
The series of springs selected for testing represented a broad cross section of available wire sizes
(0.006 to 0.010 inch in diameter), lumen sizes (0.030
to 0.040 inch), and four wire types from three manufacturers.* Compression tests were run with 20 mm
lengths of the selected springs on a special test apparatus (Fig. 1) used in conjunction with an Instron test
machine capable of compressing the springs along a
selected arch wire at a constant rate and graphing the
resultant force. Knowing the rate of machine crosshead
motion and the speed of the chart paper, graphs of
deflection (compressed length) versus force were produced .
For each selected spring type, five repetitions were
made on each of two types of arch wire, one 0.016 inch
round and one 0.018 x 0.022 inch rectangular. Each
spring was compressed to 10 mm (one-half its relaxed
length) and data as to the specific effect of varying the
lumen size, wire diameter, and wire alloy type were
recorded. All force-deflection curves presented are
means of the tests performed.
The data were subjected to a two-way analysis of
*Hi T and Permachrome, Unitek Corp., Monrovia, Calif.; Chromium alloy,
Consyne Grmco. Glendora, Calif.; and Elgiloy, Rocky Mountain, Denver,
co10
496
Chaconas,
Caputo,
and Harvey
Am. J. Orthod.
June 1984
------
Permachr8mc
Wire
Diameter
Lumen=0.030
Fig. 3. Force-deflection
inch wire size and four
rectangular
arch wires.
curves
different
1Omm
Hi-T
Lumen
- 0.030
1Omm
Fig. 4. Force-deflection
curves
of open coil springs
with three
wire sizes and a constant
0.030-inch
lumen size for both round
and rectangular
arch wires.
-0.010
Ima
Fig. 5. Force-deflection
springs
from different
curves
of 0.010
manufacturers.
by 0.030
inch open
coil
the wire size will produce the same effects on the performance of the open coil springs. During tooth movement, a smaller variation in force will occur with
springs of lower stiffness. This means that springs with
larger lumen sizes and smaller wire sizes would be
indicated for orthodontic use because of their more
constant force production. However, a limit to the size
of the open coil springs must be imposed in order to
remain within recommended force ranges.
Current recommendations for the use of open coil
springs direct that the springs be compressed approximately one third of their original length. It can be seen
from Figs. 3 and 4 that this procedure would give a
wide range of force depending on the spring being
used. For instance, it can be seen in Fig. 3 that if the
coil springs were compressed one third of their original
length, or 6 mm, the force produced would range between 270 gm and 540 gm. The latter amount of force
would be considered to be within the orthopedic range
and therefore not efficient for orthodontic tooth movemerit. The clinician should be aware of the force produced by the compression of the coil springs to make
certain that the force level is within the range needed to
accomplish orthodontic tooth movement.
As seen in Fig. 3, for open coil springs of the larger
lumen size, there was a greater linear range of force
production with the rectangular arch wire than with the
round arch wire. This can be attributed to the fact that
there is less buckling of the open coil spring when used
with the rectangular arch wire than when it is used with
the round arch wire. As can be seen, this effect is
exaggerated with springs that have larger lumen sizes.
Fig. 5 shows that the open coil springs of the same
wire and lumen size produced different force-deflection
characteristics. The Ormco open coil spring demonstrated the highest stiffness. The Elgiloy spring was the
least stiff. Permachrome and Hi-T springs demon-
Volume 85
Number
Orthodontic
force characteristics
of
497
size
and
AND CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
JS: Coil springs as an application
of
1. Arnold EB, Cunningham
force. INT J ORTHOD 20: 577-579,
1934.
2. Johnson J: Twin wire alignment
appliance.
INT J ORTHOD 20:
963-968,
1934.
3. Johnson J: The construction
and the manipulation
of the twin wire
mechanism.
AM J ORTHOD ORAL SURG 27: 205-215,
1941.
4. Bell WR: A study of applied forces as related to the use of elastics
and coil springs. Angle Orthod 21: 151-154,
1951.
5. Born HS: Some facts concerning
the open coil spring. AM J ORTHOD 41: 917-925,
1955.