ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Force-deflection properties of superelastic

nickel-titanium archwires
Júlio de A. Gurgel, DDS, PhD,a Stephen Kerr, DDS,b John M. Powers, PhD,c and Vance LeCrone, DDSd
Bauru, Brazil, and Houston, Tex

This in vitro study compared the force-deflection behavior of 8 superelastic nickel-titanium orthodontic wires
(0.017 × 0.025 in) under controlled moment and temperature. To simulate leveling a lateral incisor, brackets
and first molar tubes without tip and angulation were used. The wires (n = 5) were ligated into stainless steel
brackets attached to a plastic jig to simulate a mandibular arch. A testing machine (Instron) applied deflections
of 0.2 to 2.0 mm at 35°C in the lateral incisor area. Force-deflection diagrams were determined from the
passive position to an activation of 2 mm and then during deactivation. Forces on deactivation at a deflection
of 1 mm were compared by analysis of variance. Significant differences (P < .05) in forces were observed
among wires. All wires exhibited superelastic behavior, but in stratified loading levels. (Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:378-82)

A
vital component of the fixed orthodontic appli-
ance is the orthodontic archwire. An ideal arch-
wire should be able to move teeth with a light,
continuous force. This force should be designed to min-
imize patient discomfort, tissue hyalinization, and root
resorption. When a force is applied, the archwire
should behave elastically over a period of weeks to
months. Four archwire alloys are now available that
strive to accomplish this objective. These are stainless
steel, cobalt-chromium, nickel-titanium, and beta-tita-
nium. The nickel-titanium alloys have 3 subdivisions:
conventional alloy and 2 superelastic alloys—pseudo-
elastic and thermoelastic. Each of these has unique
properties and characteristics.1 Clinically, there is no
single archwire that possesses all the desired qualities
necessary for all stages of orthodontic treatment. With
a clear understanding of the properties inherent in each
wire, the clinician can select the one best suited to a
particular phase of treatment.
The design of an ideal archwire should consider
such properties and characteristics as esthetics, friction,
aProfessor and Head of Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry Sci-
ences, University of Marília; and Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodon-
tics, University of Sagrado Coração.
bAssociate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, University of Texas Health
Science Center at Houston, Dental Branch.
cProfessor, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, and Director,
Houston Biomaterials Research Center, University of Texas Health Science
Center at Houston, Dental Branch.
dFormer dental student, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston,
Dental Branch.
Reprint requests to: John M. Powers, PhD, UT-Houston Dental Branch, 6516
John Freeman, Houston, TX 77030-3402; e-mail: John.M.Powers@uth.
tmc.edu.
Submitted, June 2000; revised and accepted, February 2001.
Copyright © 2001 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
0889-5406/2001/$35.00 + 0 8/1/117200
doi:10.1067/mod.2001.117200
378
weldability, formability, resilience, and springback.
Stainless steel and cobalt-chromium alloys became
available in the 1940s and were used extensively in
orthodontics for many years. The introduction of
nickel-titanium and multistranded stainless steel wires
in the 1970s, titanium-molybdenum and superelastic
nickel-titanium in the 1980s, and temperature-activated
superelastic wires in the 1990s has provided a wider
range of choices. The newest materials enable the cli-
nician to use light continuous forces to move teeth with
less discomfort to the patient and less stress on the sup-
porting tissues. A light force delivered at a constant
level provides the optimal condition for tooth move-
ment. This can best be achieved with wires that exhibit
large elastic deformations before breakage and thus
have a large working range.
Stainless steel archwires have been used success-
fully in orthodontics for many years and remain popu-
lar because of their low cost, excellent formability, and
good mechanical properties. Although stainless steel
has many uses, it has a relatively high stiffness when
compared with wires made from some of the newer
materials.
The Elgin Watch Company (Elgin, Ill) developed a
cobalt-chromium-nickel alloy in the 1950s. This alloy
is marketed as Elgiloy by Rocky Mountain Orthodon-
tics (Denver, Colo) and is available in 4 levels of
resilience. This wire is capable of having its strength
and formability modified by heat treatment.2
The introduction of the beta-titanium alloy in the
1970s provided a wire that had formability similar to
the austenitic stainless steel while delivering lower bio-
mechanical forces. Beta-titanium wires can also be
welded, but they have a tendency to fracture and pos-
sess a high coefficient of friction.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 120, Number 4
In the 1960s, a conventional nickel-titanium alloy
was developed that exhibited a shape memory effect
(SME). This wire, marketed by the Unitek Corporation
under the name of Nitinol, had a relatively large work-
ing range and low elastic modulus compared with
chrome-cobalt and stainless steel. However, this first
50:50 composition of nickel and titanium was a shape
memory alloy in composition only. It was a passive
martensitic-stabilized alloy that was capable of being
deformed, clamped, heated, and cooled into a specified
shape, so that when it was later deformed into a new
shape and subsequently heated, the material “remem-
bered” its previous post-heat treatment shape.2 Nickel-
titanium (NiTi) orthodontic wires are especially well
suited for clinical situations that require flexibility and
exceptional elastic memory. Nickel-titanium alloys
have a low stiffness, large working range, and produce
very low forces. Nickel-titanium archwires, however,
have limited formability, produce higher frictional
forces, and cannot be soldered.
By the 1980s, 2 generic nitinol-type alloys had been
developed that exhibited superelastic behavior; one was
an austenitic-active alloy and the other was a marten-
sitic-active alloy.3 Each of these alloys exhibits some
form of SME and superelasticity. The superelasticity
and shape memory result from changes that occur in the
atomic lattice of the alloy from the austenitic phase to
the martensitic phase, which are influenced by changes
in temperature and stress.3,4 The martensitic-active
alloy on the market today exhibits a thermally induced
SME. Transition temperatures from martensite to
austenite occur in the region of ambient oral tempera-
ture. Upon distortion and insertion into the patient’s
mouth, the appliance is activated by the warmth of the
oral cavity and returns to its predetermined shape. This
process is called thermoelasticity.5
The force-deflection curve of these superelastic
wires exhibits a plateau of constant moment during acti-
vation and deactivation. Wire manufacturers have made
an effort to develop a more clinically effective super-
elastic wire by establishing the memory property at
body temperature and the force plateau compatible with
optimal biologic tooth movement.1,6
Four basic types of laboratory tests (tension, bend-
ing, torsion, and deflection) are normally used to study
the mechanical properties of orthodontic wires.
Although these tests do not replicate a real clinical situ-
ation, they do establish values for comparison among
wires of the same alloy or wires of different types of
metallic alloys.7 The deflection test with 3 brackets
recently described allowed for variability in the interre-
lation among brackets, wires, and O-rings.8 Comparing
the 3-point tests with 3-bracket tests, Oltjen et al9 found
Gurgel et al 379
Fig 1. Jig used in testing archwire deflection.
that the use of brackets introduced a more constrained
mode of bending as a consequence of the inherent
action of the friction and binding at the bracket-wire
interface.
The orthodontic appliance is a force system that
uses wires and/or elastic bands to move teeth. However,
the action of the orthodontic appliance on the tooth and
its supporting structures involves a diversity of factors
consisting not only of the wire action, but also other
variables such as ligatures and tooth size. The amount
of force available from a wire depends on the mechani-
cal properties of the metallic alloy, structural properties
of wire, attrition, friction, and susceptibility to corro-
sion. Although NiTi superelastic wire provides consid-
erable deflection in reduced and relatively constant
amounts of force, recent studies reveal all commercial
wires do not necessarily behave in the same manner.
Minor differences in the production process contribute
to the variation in the behavior of these wires.
This investigation details a comparison of forces
achieved in different commercial NiTi superelastic
wires in a deflection test of activation and deactivation
that attempts to approximate clinical conditions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The deflection test used a device fabricated to simu-
late the movement of a mandibular lateral incisor. The
device included an acrylic plate cut to resemble a typi-
cal lower arch, in which the portion holding the left lat-
eral incisor bracket was free to move with vertical or
incisal/gingival application of deflection forces (Fig 1).
To simulate an intraoral clinical situation, 0.018 ×
0.025-in brackets (S2-02k twin mini, Morelli, São
380 Gurgel et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2001

Table I. Codes and manufacturers of nickel-titanium Table II. Forces

for activation and deactivation
wires tested measured at a deflection of 1 mm listed in order
of decreasing deactivation force
Code Wire Manufacturer
Force on activation, Force on deactivation,
C35 Copper NiTi 35°C Ormco, Glendora, Calif Wire in grams in grams
C27 Copper NiTi 27°C Ormco
E35 Elastinol 35 Masel, Philadelphia, Pa RL 1300 (100)* 834 (38)
E27 Elastinol 27 Masel E27 1340 (40) 538 (58)a
MO Nickel-titanium Morelli, São Paulo, Brazil C27 1050 (80) 460 (40)a
NI Nitinol heat-activated 3M/Unitek, Monrovia, Calif NS 1110 (10) 330 (80)b
NS Neosentalloy F200 GAC, Islip, NY C35 930 (60) 320 (60)b
RL Rematitan Lite Dentaurum, Pforzheim, Germany NI 1180 (40) 250 (22)b,c
MO 1000 (40) 190 (20)c
NiTi, Nickel-titanium. E35 990 (100) 190 (40)c

*Means (n = 5) with standard deviation in parentheses.

Paulo, Brazil) and a first molar tube (T2-04U, Morelli,
São Paulo, Brazil) with no angulation or torque were
bonded on the lateral surface of the acrylic jig. These
attachments were bonded with an interbracket distance
of 5 mm for each segment. This interbracket distance
was arbitrarily chosen as an average clinical inter-
bracket distance. Individual 0.017 × 0.025-in archwire
specimens were placed in the bracket slots and tied with
elastomeric ligatures (silver Quik-Stik modules A-1,
3M/ Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) for each of 5 specimens
(Fig 1).
After the adaptation of each archwire specimen, the
test apparatus was placed into a temperature-controlled
chamber and heated to 35°C. The entire test was then
conducted inside the chamber at this temperature. The
force/activation curve was measured from the passive
position to an activation of 2 mm, then back to zero.
Activation for each of the 8 commercial wires (Table I)
was repeated 5 times with new wire on a testing
machine (Instron, Canton, Mass) with a 5-kg load cell
and a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min.
Means and standard deviations (n = 5) of the forces
generated at activation and deactivation for a deflection
of 1 mm were calculated. Data for the deactivation
forces were analyzed by analysis of variance (SuperA-
NOVA, Abacus Concepts, Berkeley, Calif). Means were
compared by using a Tukey-Kramer interval calculated
at the .05 level of significance.
RESULTS
Means and standard deviations of activation and
deactivation forces of the wires measured at a deflection
of 1 mm are listed in Table II and are shown graphically
in Figures 2 and 3. The deactivation deflection of 1 mm
was selected to establish a comparison parameter at the
midpoint of the deactivation executed in this study. The
analysis of variance of the deactivation forces showed
significant differences among wires. The Tukey-Kramer
interval for comparisons of means among the 8 wires at
the .05 significance level was 110 g.
The Tukey-Kramer interval for comparisons of means among wires at
the .05 significance level was 110 g.
Forces identified with the same superscripted letters were not differ-
ent statistically.
Wires MO and E35 were similar in that they had the
lowest deactivation forces, whereas wire RL had the
highest deactivation force. The deactivation forces were
ranked from lowest to highest as: E35=MO=NI,
NI=C35=NS<C27=E27<RL. Five of the superelastic
wires tested (MO, NI, NS, E35, and C35) showed a
force-deflection curve with the deactivation plateau in a
range of moment between 190 and 350 g, whereas E27
and C27 both exhibited a plateau between 450 and 550
g. Only RL reached a level higher than 600 g (Figs 2
and 3).
Some MO specimens were permanently deformed
before reaching the final activation of 2 mm and were
discarded. This effect was not observed in any of the
other commercial wires.
DISCUSSION
By virtue of their adaptability, high resilience, and
production of a constant force, the use of superelastic
NiTi wires has spread in orthodontics. Selection of the
appropriate wire for a particular clinical condition
should be based on the ability of these wires to produce
a constant moment over different degrees of deflection.
Some companies market wires that reach the superelas-
tic plateau with different amounts of force. For this rea-
son it becomes necessary to observe which force is suit-
able for the type of tooth movement desired. Although
NiTi superelastic wire provides considerable deflection
in reduced and relatively constant amounts of force, all
commercial wires may not necessarily behave in the
same manner. Minor differences in the production
process could contribute to the variation in the behavior
of these wires.
The martensitic stabilized NiTi alloy wires used in
this study produced varying load/deflection curves. The
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 120, Number 4
Fig 2. Load/unload deflection graph for MO, E35, NI, and C35.
Fig 3. Load/unload deflection graph for NS, C27, E27, RL.
deflection forces ranged from a low of 190 g to a high
of 600 g. The load/deflection curves in activation/deac-
tivation in this study were found to be typical of super-
elastic wires.
The 5 wires that exhibited the lowest activation/
deactivation forces might be more adaptable clinically
to cases of mild-to-moderate crowding. The amount of
crowding should be a major consideration in the clini-
cal selection of a superelastic wire. Satisfactory adapta-
tion of the wire in the bracket slot must occur, allowing
optimal biologic tooth movement.
Lowering the temperature of a superelastic archwire
enhances its ability to adapt to a condition such as
crowding. This study tested the activation and deactiva-
tion of the wires at a controlled temperature of 35°C in
an effort to approximate the oral environment.
The selection of orthodontic wires for correction of
dental crowding should be based on several factors
related to the degree of the crowding.10,11 Rectangular
Gurgel et al 381
superelastic wires should not be accepted as the rule for
all cases. For moderate crowding cases, the superelastic
wire may not be deformed to the point where it
reaches the superelastic plateau. Evan et al12 found
that these wires should sustain angular deformation
from 50°C to 70°C to express linear elasticity. For
this reason, these wires have been shown to be effi-
cient in the correction of alignment and leveling when
used in such thickness (round or rectangular) to allow
this relative amount of angular deformation. Also, these
wires have been shown to have little effect in torque
correction.
Although the comparison of the mechanical proper-
ties of the NiTi superelastic wires and wires of other
alloys presents outstanding differences, the structural
properties (form and dimension) seem to have a similar
outcome in the movement of teeth with regard to deflec-
tion. In addition to these factors, other components that
influence tooth movement are the interbracket distance,
382 Gurgel et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
October 2001

arch form, direction of activation, type of bracket, slot
dimensions, and bracket-wire friction.13 Although these
factors were not individually quantified, this study
acknowledges the influence they contribute to the
behavior of the wires tested.
CONCLUSIONS
This laboratory study compared 8 types of commer-
cially available superelastic orthodontic wires. The
wires were tested with a device that simulated the oral
environment, specifically, a lower arch with a bonded
appliance. The results show that all 8 wires exhibited
superelastic behavior, but in stratified loading levels.
REFERENCES
1. Kusy RP. A review of contemporary archwires: their properties
and characteristics. Angle Orthodont 1997;67:197-208.
2. Kusy RP, Stush AM. Geometric and material parameters of a
nickel-titanium and the beta-titanium orthodontic wire alloy.
Dent Mater 1987;3:207-17.
3. Khier SE, Brantley WA, Fournelle RA. Bending properties of
superelastic and nonsuperelastic nickel-titanium orthodontic
wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99:310-8.
4. Adams DM, Powers JM, Asgar K. Effects of brackets and ties on
stiffness of an arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1987;91:131-6.
5. Gurgel JA, Kerr S, Powers JM, Pinzan A. Torsional properties of
commercial nickel-titanium wires during activation and deactiva-
tion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, in press.
6. Andreasen G, Wass K, Chan KC. A review of superelastic and
thermodynamic nitinol wire. Quintessence Int 1985;16:623-6.
7. Waters NE, Stephens CD, Houston WJB. Physical Characteristics
of orthodontics wires and archwires—part 1. Br J Orthod 1975;2:
15-24.
8. Nakano H, Satoh K, Norris R, Jin T, Kamegai T, Ishikawa F, et al.
Mechanical properties of several nickel-titanium alloy wires in
three-point bending tests. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1999;115:390-4.
9. Oltjen JM, Duncanson MG Jr, Ghosh J, Nanda RS, Currier GF.
Stiffness-deflection behavior of selected orthodontic wires. Angle
Orthodont 1997;67:209-18.
10. Waters NE, Houston WJB, Stephens CD. Characterization of
arch wires for the initial alignment of irregular teeth. Am J
Orthod 1981;79:373-89.
11. Waters NE. A rationale for the selection of orthodontic wires. Eur
J Orthodont 1992;14:240-5.
12. Evans TJ, Jones ML, Newcombe RG. Clinical comparison and
performance perspective of three aligning arch wires. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:32-9.
13. Schaus JG, Nikolai RJ. Stiffness of continuous arch wires torsion.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986;89:407-14.

BOUND VOLUMES AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS

Bound volumes of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
are available to subscribers (only) for the 2001 issues from the Publisher, at a cost of $96.00
($115.56 Canada and $108.00 international) for Vol. 119 (January-June) and Vol. 120 (July-
December). Shipping charges are included. Each bound volume contains a subject and
author index and all advertising is removed. Copies are shipped within 60 days after publi-
cation of the last issue of the volume. The binding is durable buckram with the journal name,
volume number, and year stamped in gold on the spine. Payment must accompany all orders.
Contact Mosby, Subscription Customer Service, 6277 Sea Harbor Dr, Orlando, FL 32887;
phone 800-654-2452 or 407-345-4000.
Subscriptions must be in force to qualify. Bound volumes are not available in place
of a regular Journal subscription.