©1979 JCO, Inc. May not be distributed without permission. www.jco-online.
com
Common Sense Mechanics
THOMAS F. MULLIGAN, DDS
Static Equilibrium
I n spite of the fact that or-
thodontists have heard
many times over that every
action has an equal and
opposite reaction , New-
ton's Third Law has not really been
understood in such a way as to permit
the orthodontist to apply the princi-
ples in his daily orthodontic
mechanics in a simple and practical
manner. The subject of static equilib-
rium is so easy to understand , and yet
so very important in orthodontic
mechanics , that the practicing or-
thodontist cannot afford to ignore the
principles involved. Sometimes , it
seems to be the tendency to make
simple things seem difficult, because
Fig. 33 " Science Puzzler" static equilibrium experiment.
762
we are often dealing with difficult sub-
jects . However , in the case of static
equilibrium , the subject matter is so
easy to comprehend that a grade
school child finds little difficulty with it .
When asked one time to speak on the
subject of statics , I wondered aloud
how I could make the subject seem
interesting and was overheard by one
of my sons who was in early grade
school at the time. He wasted no time
in going to a book titled " Science Puz-
zlers " to search for the subject as well
as a means of demonstration (Fig.
33).
The experiment consisted of a
glass with a coin sitting on the lip of the
glass with two forks suspended on the
edge of the coin. Certainly , this seems
like an impossibility to the unaware in-
~ 1979 JPO. Inc. JCO/NOVEMBER 1979
 ©1979 JCO, Inc. May not be distributed without permission. www.jco-online.com

Fig. 34 Unequal weights unbalance beam .
n 0
!IJ
Fig. 35 Shifting fulcrum point (shown) or
shifting unequal weights establishes state
of balance.

dividual, but it manages to stay in a Requirements for Static Equilib-

state of balance because it meets the rium
requirements for static equilibrium in
Three requirements are automati-
this situation. Keep in mind that an ef-
cally fulfilled whenever static equilib-
fort was put forth to establish equilib-
rium is established.
rium in this case, but in orthodontics
The first requirement for stat ic
we have the advantage of equilibrium
equilibrium is that the sum of all the
automatically establishing itself every
vertical forces present must equal zero
time we engage an archwire into the
(Fig . 36). This is why we must deal with
brackets and tubes . We do not, the re-
extrusive components of force during
fore, have to concern ourselves with
how to create static equilibrium , but
rather with how to recognize the forces
and moments (torques) that come into
existence to establish the static state .
Relating to our own lifetime ex-
periences - as we did with the " cue
ball concept " - we can recall the
teeter-totter, familiar to us as young -
sters. When a large person sat at one
end and a smaller person at the other
end (Fig. 34) , the board was not in
balance until the heavier end struck
the ground . If we , as youngsters , de-
sired to convert this " dynamic" state
to a state of statics, we simply shifted
either the unequal weights or the ful-
crum point on the board (Fig. 35) .
Then , we encountered a state of bal- Fig. 36 First requirement for static equilib-
ance . The question , therefore , is rium . Sum of all vertical forces must equal
why? zero.

VOLUME XIII NUMBER II 763

 ©1979 JCO, Inc. May not be distributed without permission. www.jco-online.com

COMMON SENSE MECHANICS

overbite correction (Fig. 37) . Since we

cannot eliminate these forces, we
must learn to control them . Controlling

8 b force magnitude will be discussed

later .
The second requirement for static
equilibrium is that the sum of all hori-

i ! zontal forces present must equal zero

Fig. 37 Intrusive force on incisor balanced
by extrusive force on molar.
(Fig. 38). This is why we cannot correct
a unilateral crossbite with a single
horizontal force (Fig . 39) . We must
apply common sense when treating
these problems.
The third requirement for static
equilibrium is that the sum of the mo-
ments acting around ANY point must
also equal zero (Fig. 40) . We may
choose any point we wish-it does not
matter. We may produce heavy
torques in a given area and little or no
torque elsewhere, but when added
around any given point, they will equal
zero .
The third requirement SEEMS
somewhat more confusing than .the
first two , so let us discuss this third
requirement in a more meaningful and
practical way . Rather than choosing

Fig.38 Second requirement for static

equilibrium. Sum of all horizontal forces
must equal zero.

Fig. 39 Buccal force on second molar bal- Fig. 40 Third requirement for static equilib-
anced by lingual force on first molar. rium. Sum of the moments acting around any
point must equal zero.

764 JCO/NOVEMBER 1979

 ©1979 JCO, Inc. May not be distributed without permission. www.jco-online.com

MULLIGAN

" points " for addition of the moments,

think of it in this way : If we have two

ld0 ~G
moments , one acting at each end of
the archwire, and their magnitudes are
equal (Fig. 41A), it seems quite appar-
ent that the system is " balanced " . But ,
if we have the same situation with un-
equal magnitudes, it seems that the
system is no longer in balance (Fig . A
41 B) . However , we KNOW that an

ld ~
archwire , when fully engaged , always
results in static equilibrium . Therefore,
regardless of the fact that Figure 41 B
seems to be unbalanced , forces are
introduced to keep the systems bal-
anced .
Looking at the two unequal mo-
ments in Figure 41 B, it appears that
the entire unit would rotate counter-
clockwise . But, looking at Figure 41 C,
we see that forces are automatically
B
G
ld ~
created which by themselves would
cause the unit to rotate clockwise.
Actually, these are equal and oppo-
site forces - their sum must equal
zero - producing what earlier was
referred to as a couple or pure rota-
tion . The magnitude of these forces is
exactly whatever is necessary to pro-
duce a counterrotation and establish
a balanced state . Isn 't it rather in-
teresting that earlier it was shown
I ,;)
C
G1
that torque is a product of force times
Fig. 41 A. With two equal moments at either
distance? end of the archwire, the system is in balance.
This means that whenever we ob- B. With two unequal moments at either end
serve torque , it is simply a question of of the archwire, the system reaches a bal-
ance , but seems to be unbalanced and with
whether the total forces involved on the entire unit rotating counterclockwise. C.
specific teeth cancel each other. It was Actually, the unequal moments create (in
shown that with anterior lingual root this case) an extrusive force on the incisor
and an intrusive force on the molar. The sum
torque applied , a large moment was of these forces is zero, but the configuration
produced in the anterior with a resul- causes the entire unit to rotate clockwise.
tant eruptive force . In referring back to
Figure 41 B, we can now see that the
eruptive force exists because it must leaving equal and opposite root torque
exist to maintain the state of bal- with the absence of vertical forces.
ance , whereas in Figure 41A the Figure 42 illustrates a full strapup with
forces existing with each moment can- a reverse curve of Spee. Note that the
cel themselves out of the picture , thus vertical forces add up to zero along the

VOLUME XIII NUMBER II 765

 ©1979 JCO, Inc. May not be distributed without permission. www.jco-online.com
Fig.42 Reverse curve of Spee. The vertical
forces cancel out in the manner shown, but
moments produced at either end of the
archwire result in torques on the incisors
and molars (anterior lingual root torque or
labial crown torque; posterior mesial root
torque or distal crown torque).
archwire, producing moments at each
end resulting in anterior lingual root
torque (labial crown torque) and pos-
terior mesial root torque (distal crown
torque) . Unlike Figure 41A , where the
forces cancelled each other at a given
tooth site, in Figure 42 they equal zero
when the entire system is added, but
do not cancel each other at a given
site , thereby allowing predictable
- forces to act at these sites.
We are acquainted with such
forces in a reverse curve of Spee, full
strapup. In spite of the fact that we are
usually attempting anterior intrusion,
we produce anterior and posterior
forces with equal and opposite extru-
sive forces occurring through the
bicuspid areas. Of course , as was dis-
cussed earlier, intrusive forces acting
through the molar tube usually pro-
duce buccal crown torque (cue ball ef-
fect), while the intrusive force through
the incisor brackets usually produce
labial crown torque.
Arch Leveling
When leveling an arch, it has al-
766
ready been shown that in a full strapup ,
intrusive forces act through the molar
tubes, producing buccal crown torque
on the molars . Do you sometimes ob-
serve the posterior teeth moving buc-
cally for no " apparent" reason during
arch leveling?
When a 2x4 (incisors and molars)
strapup is utilized for overbite correc-
tion, such as is often done during late
mixed dentition treatment, the force
system is not the same as the one just
described. Since intrusion is placed on
the incisor segment, and because the
molars then become the reciprocal
teeth , they incur eruptive forces ,
whereas the full strapup resulted in
molar intrusive forces . Since extrusive
forces acting through the molar tubes
usually result in lingual crown torque
on the molars , we have the potential
for lingual crown movement (lingual
" dumping ") .
Do you sometimes observe the
posterior teeth moving lingually for no
" apparent" reason during arch level-
ing procedures?
During arch leveling procedures ,
we frequently observe responses that
may be undesirable . They often occur
unexpectedly and in various forms .
Too often , we tend to look at all of this
as variation occurring in the individuals
we treat, when in fact many of these
occurrences are predictable be-
forehand and therefore avoidable from
the onset.
As we can see , there is a reason
for all responses. Whenever we wit-
ness responses for " no apparent
reason ", we have failed to recognize
the cause , and as a result made our
treatment somewhat more difficult.
The recognition of causes permits us
to utilize as well as avoid certain types
of tooth movement.
(TO BE CONTINUED)
JCO/ NOVEMBER 1979