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 influence 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 significantly to the field 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 significant 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

256

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 configuration in detail. The
!A/!B values selected were 1.0, 0.5, 0.0, 0.5, 0.75,
1.0; the tooth configurations 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 classification). 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

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 sufficient 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 find 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

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
figures, relative magnitude of the moments is depicted
by radius of curved arrows. Moments in the same figure
may be compared in this way, but moments in different
figures are not always drawn to same scale. Actual
force and moment values depend on size and material
of the wire. Each figure 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 figure 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

Class

Moment ratio
MA/MB

Angle ratio
k # !A/!B

M/F ratio
at A

M/F ratio
at B

I
II
III
IV
V
VI

1.0
0.8
0.5
0.0
$0.4
$1.0

1.0
0.5
0.0
$0.5
$0.75
$1.0

0.50
0.44
0.33
0.00
$0.67

0.50
0.56
0.67
1.00
1.67

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 deflection 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 significance 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 influence 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 figure
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 figure to facilitate comparison.

Halazonetis 261

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Volume 114, No. 3

Class I

A class I geometry results when both the canine

and the first premolar are tipped mesially (Fig. 3).
The moments applied at the brackets are equal
(moment ratio # 1), but they are significantly 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 sufficient 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 influence 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 sufficient to counteract (and slightly exceed) the moment at the canine, leaving only a
mesially directed intrusive force.
Class III

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

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 significant 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 configuration.
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 configuration
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

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 findings of this study should be viewed in the

262 Halazonetis

light of the simplifications 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 deflection to be small and disregard any friction or binding
of the wire in the bracket slot. Results achieved with
large-deflection theory are not significantly different, but friction may introduce great horizontal
forces.5
The results show that the moment ratios that
characterize the six basic geometries are significantly altered when examined at the center of
resistance.
Factors identified 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
fills 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 difficult to
predict. The findings 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

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

September 1998

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 difficulty 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 confident when teeth are apartfor
example, during retraction of a canine or when a
second molar is brought upright in a case of
first-molar loss.
CONCLUSION
The findings 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 first be transferred to the center of resistance of the teeth.
The force systems at the center of resistance may
differ significantly 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 difficult. As the
teeth move under the influence 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 deflection
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. Deflection 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

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

September 1998

FL 3 ML 2
2
$
# 0 f M # $F L
3EI
2EI
3

(1)

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 (1) and (2) we calculate the force and

moment:
F#

6EI!
L2

4EI!
M#$
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):
6EI
(! A " ! B)
L2

(5)

4EI
(! A " ! B / 2)
L

(6)

F B # $F A #
From equation (4):
MA # $

MB # $

4EI
(! B " ! A / 2)
L

(7)

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)
2"k

(8)

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

(9)

M B 2L (! B " ! A / 2) 4 " 2k
#
#
L
FB
3 (! A " ! B)
6k " 6

(10)

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.