Orthodontic force characteristics

coil springs

of open

Spiro J. Chaconas, D.D.S., MS.,* Angelo A. Caputo, Ph.D.,** and

Kent Harvey, D.D.S.***
Los Angeles, Caky.
Applications of open coil springs in orthodontic tooth movement are many and varied. Current descriptions of
force production by open coil springs are based upon force values produced in series of discrete compression
tests. It was the purpose of this study to analyze and compare open-coil-spring force production from continuous
load-deflection curves, thereby assisting the clinician in the selection of the ideal spring for a given application.
Load-deflection curves were generated for open coil springs of various wire diameters and lumen sizes, as well
as four wire alloys from three manufacturers. Testing was performed on an lnstron test machine using 0.016 inch
round and 0.018 by 0.022 inch rectangular arch wires. With a constant lumen size, an increase in wire size
produced an increase in force at a given activation. With a constant wire size, an increase in lumen size
produced a decrease in force at a given activation. The effect of the arch wire size and shape was not
significantly different for the coil springs with the smaller lumen sizes. For the larger lumen sizes, the springs
used with the rectangular arch wire manifested a greater linear range than those used with the smaller arch wire.
The difference between the load-deflection characteristics of the coil springs from different manufacturers was
attributed to the difference in the pitch of the coils.
Key words:

Open coil springs, force-deflection characteristics,wire size, lumen size, coil pitch

he open coil spring is a wound spring

which is activated by compression and exerts a net
pushing force in two directions away from its center. Uses of the open coil spring in orthodontics are
many and varied, but experimental data describing its
force-production characteristics are lacking. It has been
the purpose of many studies in orthodontics to determine the force of optimum tooth movement; yet, when
working with open coil springs, the clinician can only
guess as to compression characteristics of the spring
that he is using. Since orthodontics is iterative in nature, it would be of great benefit to the orthodontist to
be familiar with these characteristics. In this way he
can both predict the forces being used and better control
the course and time of treatment through the proper
selection of open coil springs for optimum tooth
movement. The purpose of this study was to determine
the stiffness of a variety of open coil springs.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Early work with open coil springs was confined to a
comparison of springs made of precious and nonprecious metals. In 1934, in separate studies, Arnold and
Fmm the School of Dentistry, University of California at Los Angeles.
*Rofessor,
Orthodontic Section.
**Professor
and Chairman, Biomaterials
Science Section.
***Lecturer,
Operative Dentistry Section.

494

Cunningham, and Johnson made the observation that

precious metal open coil springs did not produce as
much force for a given activation as did comparable
springs made of steel wire.
In a later article, published in 1941, Johnson delineated a few physical properties of open coil springs,
specifically the effect of lumen size, spring wire diameter, arch wire type, relaxed spring length, and precious
and nonprecious wire compositions in relation to spring
performance.
In 1951 Bell4 reiterated Johnsons statement that if
the greatest amount of force is desired, the largest wire
with the smallest lumen size practical should be selected .
Then, in 1955, Born5 published an article about the
characteristics of open coil springs. Born activated a
variety of springs of different wire and lumen size and
several sizes of arch wire to varying compressed
lengths. With the materials used at that time, he then
tabulated the forces produced for comparison purposes.
There is a dearth of information in the literature
since the 1950s concerning the characteristics of open
coil springs. Investigations on closed coil springs,
however, have been reported by Webb, Caputo, and
Chacona# and Chaconas and Caputo. These works
showed the effects of wire size, lumen size, and wire
type on force production of closed coil springs.

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

coil spring being compressed

apparatus
used
in conjunction

along an arch wire

with an lnstron

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

variance and a series of one-way analyses of variance

(ANOVA). The Newman-Keuls multiple comparison
test was then employed to rank the differences. All
statistical analyses were run to meet an ff = 0.05 level
of significance. Statistical analysis was performed at
the UCLA Health Sciences Computing Facility.
RESULTS

When first compressed, the force-deflection curve

was nonlinear. This is illustrated in Fig. 2, which was
typical of the curves generated by the Ins&-on test machine for all the springs tested. This is probably best
explained as the period during which the initial load
was being distributed throughout the spring and possibly as a phenomenon of the spring settling into the
test apparatus. This was followed by a region of linear
behavior. Beyond this linear portion of the curve, the
spring exhibits an unpredictable or nonreproducible behavior. Therefore, the clinically important range is this
straight-line portion of the curve.
Fig. 3 illustrates the effect of varying the lumen size
of the spring while maintaining a constant wire size.
Represented here are the force-deflection characteristics from the linear portions of the curves for both
round and rectangular arch wires. It can be seen that for
both types of arch wires the force decreases as the
lumen size is increased for an equal amount of spring
compression. This effect was observed for all the wire
types tested. The effect of the arch wire size and shape
was not significantly different for the smaller lumen
sizes. For the larger lumen sizes, the springs used with

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

of open coil springs

with 0.010
lumen sizes for both round and

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.

the rectangular arch wire manifested a greater linear

range than with the smaller round arch wire.
With respect to different sizes of the open coil
springs and a constant lumen size, the large wire produced a greater force with the same deflection of the
springs. This is illustrated in Fig. 4, which also shows
that, with a smaller lumen size, there is no difference
between the round and rectangular arch wires.
Fig. 5 illustrates the comparison between springs
with a given wire size and lumen size from different
manufacturers. It can be seen that different wire types
of similar sizes from different manufacturers show definite variation in the force-deflection curves.
DISCUSSION

For open coil springs, decreasing the lumen size

will increase both the maximum production of force
and force produced by a given activation. Increasing

-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

open coil springs

497

Fig. 6. The differences

in the pitch of the coils from the various manufacturers.
of the pitch between
the Ormco
(A) and Elgiloy (D) open coil springs.
Permachrome
(C) coil springs
were similar and between
the two extremes.

strated stiffnesses that were intermediate to the Ormco

and Elgiloy springs. While some of this effect may be
attributed to a small variation in wire modulus, the
major cause is the difference in the pitch of, or the
distance between, the coils from the various manufacturers. This is illustrated in Fig. 6 which shows a decreasing size of the pitch between the Ormco and Elgiloy open coil springs. The pitches of the Unitek Hi-T
and Permachrome coil springs were similar and between those of the Ormco and Elgiloy coil springs. A
common biomechanical principle in orthodontics is that
a spring with a greater amount of wire incorporated
within it will produce the lightest and most effective
force for tooth movement. Interpreting Fig. 6, this
means that the open coil spring with the smallest pitch
(Elgiloy) would produce less force with a given activation than the coil spring with the larger pitch (Ormco).
SUMMARY

Note the decreasing

The Unitek
Hi-T (6)

size
and

d4G was considered for inclusion in

springs K = ___
8 D3N
this paper. Specifically, the spring constant (K) is directly proportional to the wire size (d) and the shear
modulus (G) but inversely proportional to the diameter
(D) and the number of coils (N). The helical angle
comes into play via the term, N. However, because of
its limitations, it was not included. For example, the
derivation of the formula is based upon the perfectly
elastic behavior of an initially unstressed coil spring.
The manufacturing of orthodontic coil springs is likely
to cause residual stress within the springs. Further, any
buckling tendencies of the springs are not included in
the above-mentioned formula. While it predicts some
of the effects that were demonstrated experimentally, it
is believed that the actual data are more important to
clinical practice.

AND CONCLUSIONS

The effects of wire size, lumen size, and wire type

on the production of force by open coil springs were
determined. Force production was affected as follows:
1. With a constant lumen size, an increase in wire
size produced an increase in force at a given activation.
2. With a constant wire size, an increase in lumen
size produced a decrease in force at a given activation.
3. The effect of the arch wire size and shape was
not significantly different for the coil springs with the
smaller lumen sizes.
4. For the larger lumen sizes, the springs used with
the rectangular arch wire manifested a greater linear
range than those used with the smaller round arch wire.
5. The difference between the load-deflection
characteristics of the coil springs from different manufacturers was attributed mainly to the differencein the
pitch of the coils (distance between coils).
6. The formula governing the behavior of coil

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.

6. Webb RI, Caputo AA, Chaconas

SJ: Orthodontic
force production by closed coil springs. AM J ORTHOD 74: 405-409,
1978.
7. Chaconas
SJ, Caputo AA: Force-extension
characteristics
of
closed coil springs. J Calif Dent Assoc 6: 40-45, 1978.

Reprint requests to:

Dr. Spiro Chaconas
Department
of Orthodontics
UCLA School of Dentistry
Los Angeles, CA 90024