SPECIAL ARTICLE

Friction in perspective

Stanley Braun, DDS, MME,a Maurice Bluestein, PhD,b B. Keith Moore, PhD,c and Gary Benson, DDSd
Chicago, Ill, Indianapolis, Ind, and Nashville, Tenn

In the past, most frictional resistance studies have been conducted in a steady state condition that does not
simulate the dynamics of the oral environment. Various oral functions as chewing, swallowing, speaking, etc,
as well as the oral tissues contacting any orthodontic appliances, result in periodic, repetitive, minute
relative motion at the bracket/arch wire interfaces several thousand times each day. This in turn affects the
normal forces at the interfaces, and because frictional resistance is directly proportional to the normal force,
a pilot study was undertaken to emulate the dynamic environment of the oral cavity and its effect on
frictional resistance. Tests of a limited sample of stainless steel arch wires and brackets typically used in
sliding mechanics revealed that frictional resistance was effectively reduced to zero each time minute
relative movements occurred at the bracket/arch wire interfaces. Factors such as the degree of dental
tipping, relative arch wire/slot clearances, and method of tying, did not have a measurable effect on frictional
resistance in the simulated dynamics of the oral environment. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1999;115:619-27)

S o called sliding mechanics is a common
approach used in the closure of extraction sites and in
the “distalization” of teeth to obtain increased arch
length. Consequently, relative motion occurs between
the bracket and arch wire with attendant frictional
resistance at their interfaces.1 This is believed to influ-
ence the rate of tooth movement, to impact on the
moment to force ratios of the teeth and consequently
their centers of rotation, and to increase the potential
loss of “anchorage”.2 Many studies have been con-
ducted to evaluate the principal factors that may influ-
ence frictional resistance. These have been identified
as: (1) relative bracket/arch wire clearances3; (2) arch
wire size as related to stiffness4; (3) round versus rec-
tangular arch wires5; (4) torque at the bracket/wire
interface5; (5) surface conditions of the arch wires and
bracket slots6; (6) type and force of ligation7-9; (7)
character of relative motion at the bracket/wire inter-
face (tipping versus linear movement)7; (8) bracket and
wire materials10-12; and (9) bracket slot width.13,14
Frictional resistance has been primarily studied in
vitro. The majority of investigators have suspended
arch wire samples while drawing test brackets along
the arch wire as seen in the schematic of Fig 1. This
a Clinical Professor of Orthodontics, Vanderbilt University, and Marquette
University.
bAssociate Professor, Mechanical Engineering Technology, Indiana Univer-
sity—Purdue University Indianapolis.
cProfessor of Restorative Dentistry, Indiana University School of Dentistry.
dResident in Orthodontics, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Reprint requests to: Stanley Braun, DDS, MME, 7940 Dean Road, Indianapolis,
IN 46240.
Copyright © 1999 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
0889-5406/99/$8.00 + 0 8/1/90173
does not fully emulate the clinical reality. In the case of
canine retraction, the arch wire is relatively constrained
at one end by the posterior teeth and the other end by
the anterior teeth. This relative constraint affects the
mechanical loading at the bracket/arch wire interface,
and thus the frictional resistance. (Frictional resistance
is proportional to the normal force.) The loading is
quite different from that which would occur in the can-
tilever arrangement of Fig 1. The ratio of the normal
forces on an arch wire constrained at both ends to that
of a cantilevered arch wire can vary from 3 to 1 to over
9 to 1, depending on the position of the bracket relative
to the fixed support(s). See Appendix for an analysis of
the relative force systems.
It is critically important to recognize that the entire
dentition is essentially joined to the surrounding bone
through springs; namely, the periodontal ligaments.
Thus when one chews, speaks, swallows, etc, at least
several thousand times each day, responsive minute
movements of the teeth occur.15,16 In addition, when
the surrounding tissues, food particles, etc, contact the
orthodontic appliance, random asynchronous minute
movements occur in the appliance. These are reflected
in numerous minute momentary movements at the
bracket/arch wire interfaces. These phenomena have
been shown to result in an 85% reduction of frictional
resistance at the bracket/arch wire interface as com-
pared with earlier studies.17 This significant periodic
reduction in frictional resistance is explained by the
normal force(s) approaching zero attendant to the
minute, relative movements at the interfaces.
Andreasen and Quevedo,3 in an earlier study, recog-
nized that relative movement within the periodontium,
619
620 Braun et al
Fig 1. Schematic of past frictional experimental set-ups.
enhanced by mastication, tended to decrease friction,
and, as the periodontal ligament spaces enlarged during
orthodontic movement, frictional resistance is further
reduced. Thurow9 suggested that relatively minute
movements of teeth in function provided a “walking”
effect that allows a bracket to move along an arch wire
more easily. Until Liew’s study,17 all frictional resis-
tance measurements were conducted in a steady state,
absent any perturbations or disturbances at the
bracket/arch wire interface that would be produced by
various oral functions. Peak chewing forces, which is
only one cause of these perturbations, have been mea-
sured at 150 kg by Muhlemann,18 whereas maximal
bilateral biting forces in the posterior segments have
been measured at 176 Newtons by other investiga-
tors.19 Chewing contact frequencies have also been
measured from a low of 32 cycles per minute to a high
of 146 cycles per minute.15,16
Other investigators20.21 have surmised that dental
tipping, which occurs when a Class I (horizontal) force
is applied at the bracket, will result in a reactive couple
at the bracket/arch wire interface. Arch wire stiffness
and the magnitude of dental tipping are important fac-
tors in determining frictional resistance as they can
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
June 1999
produce increased reactive couples at the interfaces
with proportionally greater normal forces. However, it
is important to note that earlier investigators were
influenced by data obtained under steady state condi-
tions.
Considering these factors, a pilot study was con-
ducted to evaluate the effect of various relative
bracket/arch wire angulations (degree of dental tip-
ping), and two means of tying (steel and elastomeric)
on frictional resistance while under the influence of
low order random perturbations applied at the bracket
(tooth) and/or to the arch wire (appliance) in three
planes of space as an emulation of oral functions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This pilot study was limited to stainless steel arch
wires and brackets, as these materials are most com-
monly used in sliding mechanics. Three arch wire
cross-sections were studied: 0.018 × 0.025 inch rectan-
gular, 0.016 inch round, and 0.016 × 0.016 inch square,
(Ormco Corp, Glendora, Calif). The arch wire samples
were randomly selected. Two types of 0.018 inch slot
brackets, the Ormco standard canine bracket (350-
1360) and the Ormco standard premolar bracket (350-
0506), were similarly selected for this study.
Each of the arch wire samples was mounted in a jig
that provided constraint on either side of the test
bracket. This jig was attached to the base portion of an
Instron tensile testing machine Model No. 1123
(Chicago, Ill), equipped with a Sintech Data Process-
ing system (Eden Prairie, Minn) (Fig 2). Each of the
test brackets was mounted on another specially
designed jig that in turn was attached to the upper
moveable portion of the tensile testing machine. Thus
the test bracket could be drawn along the constrained
test arch wire. The bracket-holding jig allowed for
changes in the bracket angle relative to the arch wire.
The center of rotation of each of the brackets is 10 mm
from the bracket slot center to simulate an uncontrolled
tipping movement that would initially occur when a
Class I force is applied at the bracket22,23 (Fig 3). The
bracket angulations relative to the arch wire were
tested from zero degrees (as in translatory movement)
to a maximum of 25.5°, as in dental tipping.
All tests were conducted in a dry environment. A
total of 48 tests were conducted of the two bracket
types combined with the various arch wire sizes men-
tioned above. Bracket movement along the arch wire
started from a rest position to a constant velocity of 0.1
mm per minute. This is the least velocity permitted by
the Instron machine used.
All arch wires tested were held in place in the
bracket slots with 0.010 inch steel tie wire. Additional
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 115, Number 6
Fig 2. A. Typical wire sample supported in a jig attached to the Instron tensile testing machine. B.
Overall view of the test apparatus.
separate tests were done using elastomeric ties (Ormco,
637-3120) with 0.016 × 0.016 inch rectangular and
0.016 inch round arch wire samples. All tying was done
by the same person. Perturbations were applied to the
bracket or arch wire in random frequencies and in ran-
dom directions in all three planes of space. The pertur-
Braun et al 621
bations consisted of applying a measured finger touch
to the bracket or arch wire with a mean force of 87.2
grams (range, 20 to 200 grams). Each perturbation was
measured by a Correx gauge (Haag – Streit, Berne).
The same person applied the perturbations in all tests.
It should be noted that while frictional resistance
622 Braun et al
Fig 3. Test brackets shown in a jig that permits angular
changes with a center of rotation at 10 mm.
was measured and recorded, it was not evaluated as a
separate quantity. This had been done previously by
many other investigators, as noted in the introduction
section of this manuscript. As stated earlier, this pilot
study is limited to evaluating the effects of random per-
turbations on frictional resistance, not to quantitate
steady state frictional resistance.
RESULTS
Representative effects of random perturbations on
frictional resistance at the bracket/arch wire interface
for various angles of dental tipping and selected arch
wire sizes and bracket combinations with steel ties and
elastomeric ties are shown in Fig 4, 5, and 6. These
graphic representations were selected from a large
number of strip charts to illustrate the effects of indi-
vidual perturbations applied in an unplanned manner to
either the bracket or the arch wire in each of the three
planes of space. Each perturbation resulted in an asso-
ciated decline in frictional resistance. Minute oscilla-
tions in the diminished frictional resistance portion of
the graphs are due to inherent oscillations in the appli-
ance and/or because two or three sequential perturba-
tions were applied closely together in time to the same
positions on the appliance in a constant plane. Exam-
ples may be seen in test 1, specimens 6, 7, 12, and 14,
test 2, specimens 11 and 13, and test 3, specimen 1.
In all tests, except in test 4, specimen 4 (steel tied,
premolar bracket at 17° arch wire size 0.018 × 0.025
inch) perturbations resulted in frictional resistance
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
June 1999
becoming zero. In this one test the frictional resistance
was reduced 98%. In test 2, specimen 11 (elastomeric
tie, canine bracket at 7°, arch wire size 0.016 × 0.016
inch), the frictional resistance was reduced 83%.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Perturbations, although an inexact replication of
those occurring in the oral environment, resulted in
frictional resistance to momentarily become zero in
95.8% of the 48 experiments conducted. This reduction
seemed to be independent of the arch wire size in the
0.018 inch slot brackets tested. The use of steel or elas-
tomeric ties had no apparent influence. Surprisingly,
perturbations of the 0.018 inch slot brackets, steel tied
to an .018 × 0.025 inch arch wire sample, resulted in a
100% reduction of frictional resistance at each pertur-
bation except in one instance noted previously, where
the frictional resistance was reduced 98%. Elastomeric
ties were not tested for this bracket/arch wire combina-
tion as this arch wire size in a 0.018 inch slotted
bracket is seldom, if ever, used in sliding mechanics.
However, there is no evidence to lead the investigators
to believe that the method of tying would make an
important difference. Tests also showed that frictional
resistance was essentially periodically reduced to zero
in tests of both 0.016 × 0.016 inch rectangular and
0.016 inch round arch wire combined with either the
canine or premolar bracket, using either steel or elas-
tomeric ties.
It is recognized that in this study kinetic frictional
resistance was measured (0.1 mm per minute relative
velocity) as opposed to a calculated intraoral relative
velocity of 0.23 × 10-4 mm per minute (equivalent to 1
mm per month intraorally), which is more akin to sta-
tic frictional resistance. Kinetic frictional resistance
has been generally found to be lower than that of static
friction.24 Nevertheless, there is no evidence to suggest
that perturbations would not significantly reduce static
frictional resistance as well. Kusy et al7 found that as
sliding velocity decreased from 10 mm per minute to
0.5 × 10-3 mm per minute, the coefficient of friction for
stainless steel surfaces was unaffected.
Earlier investigators have suggested that increased
relative bracket/arch wire angulations will produce
greater vertical reactive forces at the interfaces and
thus increased frictional resistance.4,20,21 This pilot
study suggests that relative bracket/arch wire angula-
tions up to 25.5°, in the presence of perturbations, do
not increase frictional resistance. However, it should be
noted that relative arch wire stiffness and consequently
the related response to random perturbations is affected
significantly by the arch wire length defined by the
location of the end supports. In this initial pilot study,
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Braun et al 623
Volume 115, Number 6

Fig 4. Perturbation effects on two types of 0.018 slot brackets steel tied to 0.018 × 0.025 rectangu-
lar steel arch wire. Bracket angles are from 0° to 25.0° The Y axis represents frictional resistance;
the X axis time or displacement along the arch wire.

the distance between the end supports exceeded the
arch wire length that may be defined by the second pre-
molar bracket posteriorly and the lateral incisor bracket
anteriorly as in the case of canine movement into a first
premolar extraction site. If the arch wire length is
reduced, and its related stiffness significantly
increased, then it is possible that the reactive couple,
occurring during dental tipping, would occur at a lesser
angle than that found in this pilot study. With greater
arch wire stiffness, the deflections resulting from ran-
dom perturbations may not result in frictional resis-
tance becoming zero. However, in the clinical reality,
624 Braun et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
June 1999

Fig 5. Perturbation effects on two types of 0.018 slot brackets, steel, and elastomeric tie to 0.016
round steel arch wire. Bracket angles are from 0° to 21.5°. The Y axis represents frictional resis-
tance; the X axis time or displacement along the arch wire.

the end brackets are supported by springs (periodontal
ligaments) and will respond. This response to perturba-
tions will tend to diminish the effects of any increased
arch wire stiffness. These complicated dynamic con-
siderations need to be evaluated more fully to under-
stand the degree that dental tipping may have on fric-
tional resistance.
The frequency of masticatory contacts, which is
only one causal component of the minute relative
motions at the bracket/arch wire interface, has been
measured from 32 to 80 cycles per minute.15,16 Thus
the relative frequency of frictional resistance approach-
ing or reaching zero is believed to be a significant
influence in sliding mechanics. It should be noted that
an important area of industrial materials handling is
based on the reduction or complete elimination of fric-
tion by the application of oscillations or vibrations to
the system. This is based on momentary decreases in
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Braun et al 625
Volume 115, Number 6

Fig 6. Perturbation effects on two types of 0.018 slot brackets steel and elastomeric tied to 0.016 ×
0.016 rectangular steel arch wire. Bracket angles are from 0° to 25.5°. The Y axis represents frictional
resistance; the X axis time or displacement along the arch wire.

surface contacts, which provides an associated instan-
taneous elimination of the normal force.25,26
This pilot study demonstrates that a preponderance
of in vitro frictional resistance experiments conducted
in the past do not reflect the mode of frictional resis-
tance that may actually occur in the oral cavity, and that
random, intermittent, repeated, minute relative motions
at the bracket/arch wire interface significantly
decrease, if not completely eliminate frictional resis-
tance. This occurs on a cyclical basis as one chews,
speaks, swallows, etc, and as the tissues, food, etc, con-
tact the orthodontic appliance.
The reduction of frictional resistance is propor-
tional to the magnitude of the perturbations and
because those used in this study are an inexact replica
of intraoral dynamics, it should be studied further so
that a more precise emulation of intraoral perturba-
tions may be achieved. In addition, this pilot study was
conducted on a limited sample of stainless steel arch
wire sizes and brackets. It has been noted by many
626 Braun et al
investigators that arch wires fabricated of other mate-
rials such as nickel titanium and brackets made of
ceramic or plastic materials exhibit greater frictional
resistance.27-29 Although these earlier studies were
conducted under steady state conditions, would the
results and conclusions be the same if studied under
simulated intraoral dynamic conditions? This remains
to be studied.
Frictional resistance may, however, be an important
consideration when an arch wire must simultaneously
move through several in-line brackets during extraction
site closure. We believe that it is unlikely that perturba-
tions would result in simultaneous, synchronous rela-
tive motion in all of the related bracket/arch wire inter-
faces. This pilot study was limited to the examination
of the effects of random perturbations at one
bracket/arch wire interface. Multiple interfaces should
be evaluated in a simulation of the dynamics of the
intraoral environment as well.
APPENDIX
The analysis of arch wire/bracket systems is con-
cerned with the generation of forces normal to the
arch wire where it contacts the bracket surfaces. As
explained by Matasa,30 a bracket at an angle to the
arch wire can produce a couple by virtue of the
opposing normal forces generated at the ends of the
bracket. This couple creates frictional resistance in
opposition to those forces intended to move the tooth.
The value of the couple will vary with the geometry
and the type of arch wire used. Researchers31 have
studied the relationship between the couple at the
bracket/arch wire interface and the resultant angular
deflection of the arch wire at the location of the cou-
ple. This research has been typically performed by
drawing a bracket along a cantilevered arch wire as
shown in Fig 1. The angular deflection of a cantilever
beam under a moment applied at a distance X from
the fixed end is: Ø = MX/EI where Ø is the angular
deflection from the axis of the beam, in radians, M is
the moment of the couple; in inch-pounds, X is the
distance from the fixed end; in inches, E is the mod-
ulus of the elasticity of the beam, in psi, I is the
moment of inertia of the beam crossectional area, in
(inches).4 The clinical reality is more appropriately
described by an arch wire fixed at both ends. If a
moment is applied at a distance from one end, the
solution of the resultant angular deflection is more
complex but can be solved using a finite element
approach.32 Angular deflections have been obtained
at discreet points along this fixed arch wire for com-
parison with the cantilever case. The resultant angu-
lar deflections are:
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
June 1999
Location of moment/ Ø for fixed beam Ø for cantilever
deflection beam
1/4 length from fixed end 0.082 ML/EI 0.250 ML/EI
1/2 length from fixed end
0.0625 ML/EI 0.500 ML/EI
3/4 length from fixed end 0.082 ML/EI 0.750 ML/EI
where L is the length of the arch wire or the arch
wire between the supports.
Thus, to achieve the same angular deflection as for
the cantilever arch wire, the fixed arch wire test must
apply significantly greater couples, and thus greater
normal forces, for a given bracket width. As an exam-
ple, at the midpoint of the beam, the ratio of the normal
forces for the fixed versus cantilever arch wires would
be 0.500/0.0625, or 8.0. The ratio of the 1/4 point is 3.05
and at the 3/4 point, 9.15.
REFERENCES
1. Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces between bracket and arch
wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:397-404.
2. Taylor NG, Ison K. Frictional resistance between orthodontic brackets and arch wires
in the buccal segments. Angle Orthod 1996;66:215-22.
3. Andreasen GF, Quevedo FR. Valuation of friction forces in the 0.022” × 0.028” edge-
wise bracket in vitro. J Biomech 1970;3:151-60.
4. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional resistance between ortho-
dontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod 1980;78:593-609.
5. Peterson L, Spencer R, Andreasen GF. A comparison of friction resistance for nitonol
and stainless steel wire in edgewise brackets. Quintessence 1982;5:563-71.
6. Sims APT, Waters ME, Birnie DJ, Pethybridge RJ. A comparison of the forces
required to produce tooth movement in vitro using two self-ligating brackets and a
pre-adjusted bracket employing two types of ligation. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:377-85.
7. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Mayhew MJ, Buckthal JE. Surface roughness of orthodontic
arch wire via laser spectroscopy. Angle Orthod 1988;58:33-45.
8. Kemp DW. A comparative analysis of friction forces between self-ligating and con-
ventional edgewise orthodontic brackets [abstract]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1992; 103:198.
9. Thurow R. Elastic ligature, binding forces, and anchorage fixation. Am J Orthod
1975;67:694.
10. Kapila S, Angolkar PV, Duncanson MG Jr, Nanda RS. Evaluation of friction between
edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:117-26.
11. Vaughan JL, Duncanson Jr. MG, Nanda RS, Currier GF. Relative kinetic frictional
forces between sintered stainless steel brackets and orthodontic wire. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:20-7.
12. Rose CM, Zernik JH. Reduced resistance to sliding in ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod
1996;32:78-84.
13. Kamiyama T, Sasaki T. Friction and width of brackets. J Jap Orthod Soc 1973;32:286-9.
14. Yamaguchi K, Nanda RS, Morimoto N, Oda Y. A study of force application, amount
of retarding force, and bracket width in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1996;109:50-6.
15. Picton DCA. Some implications of normal tooth mobility during mastication. Arch
Oral Biol 1964;9:565-73.
16. Proffit WR. Contemporary orthodontics. St Louis: CV Mosby; 1986.
17. Liew CF. The effect of repeated displacement on sliding friction between orthodontic
bracket and arch wire [unpublished thesis]. University of Queensland, Faculty of Den-
tistry, Oct 1993.
18. Muhlemann HR. Tooth mobility: a review of clinical aspects and research findings. J
Periodont 1967;38:687-713.
19. Braun S, Hnat WP, Freudenthaler JF, Marcottte MR, Honigle K, Johnson BE. A
study of maximum bite force during growth and development. Angle Orthod 1996;
66:261-4.
20. Spiller JG, DeFranco DJ, Story RJ, von Fraunhoffer JA. Friction forces in bracket-
wire-ligature combinations. J Dent Res 1990;69:A369.
21. Ho KS, West VC. Frictional resistance between edgewise brackets and arch wires.
Aust Orthod J 1991;12:95-9.
22. Tanne K, Koenig HA, Burstone CJ. Moment-to-force ratios and the centers of rota-
tion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:426-31.
23. Nikolai RJ. Bioengineering analysis of orthodontic mechanics. Philadelphia: Lea &
Fabiger; 1985.
24. Brown ED, Owens RS, Booser ER. Friction of dry surfaces in: Ling FF, Klaus EE,
Fein RS, eds. Boundarylubrication: an appraisal of world literature. New York: Amer-
ican Society of Mechanical Engineers; 1996. p. 7-18.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Braun et al 627
Volume 115, Number 6

25. Fridman HD, Levesque P. Reduction of static friction by sonic vibrations. J Appl Phys
1959;30:1572-5.
26. Broniec Z, Lenriewicz W. Static friction processes under dynamic loads and vibration.
Wear 1982;80:261-71.
27. Kapila S, Sachdeva R. Mechanical properties and clinical applications of orthodontic
wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:100-9.
28. Tidy DC. Frictional forces in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1989;96:249-54.
29. Tanne K, Matsubara S, Shibaguchi T, Sakuda M. Wire friction from ceramic brackets
during simulated canine retraction. Angle Orthod 1991;61:285-90.
30. Matasa CG. Bracket angulation as a function of its length in the canine distal move-
ment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;110:178-84.
31. Cheng FH. Statics and strength of materials. New York: Glencoe/McGraw Hill;
1997.
32. Zecher J. An interractive graphics-oriented beam analysis program. Proc Am Soc
Engineering Edu, 1996; Session 3520.

AAO MEETING CALENDAR

2000 — Chicago, Ill, April 29 to May 3, McCormick Place Convention Center (5th
IOC and 2nd Meeting of WFO)
2001 — Toronto, Ontario, Canada, May 5 to 9, Toronto Convention Center
2002 — Baltimore, Md, April 20 to 24, Baltimore Convention Center
2003 — Hawaiian Islands, May 2 to 9, Hawaii Convention Center
2004 — Orlando, Fla, May 1 to 5, Orlando Convention Center
2005 — San Francisco, Calif, May 21 to 26, Moscone Convention Center
2006 — New Orleans, La, April 29 to May 3, Ernest N. Morial Convention Center