Original Article

Comparative Evaluation of the Force Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society

53(3) 189–196, 2019

and Load Deflection Rate for Different © 2019 Indian Orthodontic Society
Reprints and permissions:
in.sagepub.com/journals-permissions-india
Loop Springs with Varying Designs, Wire DOI: 10.1177/0301574219859529
journals.sagepub.com/home/jio
Dimensions, and Materials: A Finite
Element Method Study

Bhagyashree S. Jadhav1, Ravindranath V. Krishnan1,Vivek J. Patni1, Girish R. Karandikar2,

Anita G. Karandikar3, and Swapnil D. Pardeshi4

Abstract
Objective: To evaluate and compare the force and load deflection rate generated by differing unit displacement through 1
to 4 mm of springs that vary in design (Double Delta Closing Loop, Double Vertical T Crossed Closing Loop, Double Vertical
Helical Closing Loop and Ricketts Maxillary Retractor), constituting wire materials (stainless steel and beta titanium), and
wire dimensions (0.017" × 0.025" and 0.019" × 0.025").
Materials and methods: Computer-assisted design (CAD) model of the said loop springs was created and converted to
the finite element method (FEM). The boundary conditions assigned were restraining anterior segment of the loops in all the
3 axes and displacement of the posterior segment progressively only along the x-axis in increments of 1, 2, 3, and 4 mm. Force
and load deflection rate were calculated for each incremental displacement.
Results: For all loop designs, force and load deflection rate increased with incremental displacement. Loop springs of beta
titanium and 0.017" × 0.025" dimension showed lesser force and load deflection rate than those of stainless steel and 0.019"
× 0.025", respectively. Ricketts Maxillary Retractor showed the least force and load deflection rate. Comparable force and
load deflection values were found for 0.017" × 0.025" Double Vertical T Crossed Loop and 0.019" × 0.025" Double Vertical
Helical Closing Loop.
Conclusions: Variations in wire dimensions, materials, and designs have a profound effect on force and load deflection rate
of the different loop springs studied.

Keywords
Force, load deflection rate, loops, finite element method

Introduction
Frictionless (loop) mechanics, an integral part of orthodontics,
was introduced to edgewise appliance by Dr Robert Strang.1
Since then, a wide variety of loops with a range of applications
have become a part of orthodontist’s armamentarium.
Faulkner, Lipsett, El-Rayes, and Haberstock2 recommended
the use of frictionless mechanics for space closure. They
postulated that it is possible to determine the exact amount
of forces being delivered to the tooth segments, that there is
no dissipation of force by friction, and that there is greater
possibility of controlled tooth movement.
The use of loop springs for closing spaces in orthodontics
requires a thorough understanding of the force systems.
For its optimally efficient use, the force system employed
depends heavily on the accuracy of the design, construction
of the loops, properties of the constituent alloy wire, and its
dimensional cross section.
Many of the appliance designs used have been evaluated
either experimentally or analytically. This study has utilized
1
Department of Orthodontics, Mahatma Gandhi Mission’s Dental
College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2
Department of Orthodontics, Bharati Vidyapeeth Dental College and
Hospital, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3
Department of Orthodontics, Saraswati-Dhanwantari Dental College
and Hospital, Maharashtra, Parbhani, Maharashtra, India
4
Department of Orthodontics, Sinhgad Dental College and Hospital,
Pune, Maharashtra, India
Corresponding author:
Bhagyashree S. Jadhav, 412/1, Roma Banjara Society, Veermata Jeejabai Marg,
Mankhurd, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400043, India.
E-mail: bsjadhav89@gmail.com

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-Commercial use, reproduction
and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
190 Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society 53(3)

the finite element method (FEM) because it can study Table 1. Wire Length Incorporated for Loop Springs
statically indeterminate systems with relative accuracy. FEM
Wire Length
is more advantageous than other experimental methods as it Sr. No. Loop Spring Design (mm)
generates a 3-dimensional model with the freedom to simulate
1. Double Delta Closing Loop 36
and study orthodontic force systems in all the anatomical
dimensions. Also, it provides precise control in terms of Double Vertical T Crossed Closing
2. 40
design, properties, and application of boundary conditions. Loop
This study intended to make an assessment of four designs 3. Double Vertical Helical Closing Loop 60
of retraction loop springs: Double Delta Closing Loop, Double 4. Ricketts Maxillary Retractor 70
Vertical T Crossed Closing Loop, Double Vertical Helical
Closing Loop, Ricketts Maxillary Retractor made of stainless
steel, and beta titanium wires of 0.017" × 0.025" and 0.019"
× 0.025" dimensions in the quest of finding the best retraction The FEM Analysis Had Three Distinct Steps
loop spring for orthodontic extraction space closure.
1. Building the model
2. Applying displacements and obtaining the solution
Materials and Methods 3. Reviewing the results
A graphic representation of each loop spring was made. The
length of wire to be incorporated for each loop was obtained Building the FEM
from standard references (Table 1).3 To this length, 2 mm was
incorporated on each side, to act as holding arms for displacement The CAD model was converted to the FEM by the software
of the loop springs during their simulation. This was followed by Altair Hypermesh (Altair Engineering Inc., Troy, Michigan,
creation of computer-assisted design (CAD) of all loop springs USA) for discretization (Figure 2). The type of the element
(Figure 1). The software utilized for CAD design fabrication was selected for all loop springs was hex. Each loop spring was
Solid Works (Dassault Systèmes, Vèlizy-Villacoublay, France). divided into a number of elements and nodes (Table 2).

Figure 1. CAD Model of all Loop Spring Designs Figure 2. FEM of all Loop Spring Designs

Table 2. Element and Node Count of FEM Model of Loop Springs

Element Count Node Count

Sr. No. Loop Spring Design 0.017" × 0.025" 0.019" × 0.025" 0.017" × 0.025" 0.019" × 0.025"
1. Double Delta Closing Loop 4005 6132 23,024 28,792
2. Double Vertical T Crossed Closing Loop 3240 3324 19,221 19,718
3. Double Vertical Helical Closing Loop 4245 6642 21,572 23,980
4. Rickets Maxillary Retractor 7905 9360 12,672 16,736
Jadhav et al. 191

Figure 4. Displacement of Double Delta Closing Loop

Figure 3. Boundary Conditions

Material Property and Data Representation

The wires were assigned specific material properties that are
of stainless steel and beta titanium for analyzing the results
of loop activations. Young’s Modulus was taken as 160 and
62 GPa for stainless steel and beta titanium, respectively.
Poisson’s ratio was 0.3 for both the materials.4

Boundary Conditions
The boundary conditions were defined so that one end
(anterior segment) was restrained (it was not able to move
in x-, y-, and z-axes, and it was not able to rotate around
these axes). The terminal node of the posterior segment was Figure 5. Displacement of Double Vertical T Crossed Closing Loop
restrained in a similar way to the anterior segment, except
that it was free to move along the horizontal axis (Figure 3).
This simulated the movement of the loop activation.

Displacement Application
The posterior segment was activated by pulling it apart. This
was done by applying displacement at an interval of 1 mm
till the total displacement obtained was 4 mm (Figures 4–7).
At each interval of displacement, the force generated was
calculated. The calculation of this force was along the
horizontal axis (the x-axis). In a normal clinical scenario,
these loops springs are activated in the horizontal axis by
pulling the distal end of wire and cinching it. Therefore, to
simulate this action, the loops were activated along the x-axis
and the force was calculated accordingly. The forces along
the y (Fy)- and z (Fz)-axes were also calculated so as to
obtain the resultant force (R). This resultant force divided by Figure 6. Displacement of Double Vertical Helical Closing Loop
the displacement gave the load deflection rate value.
192 Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society 53(3)

Figure 7. Displacement of Ricketts Maxillary Retractor
Results
As the displacement was only along the x-axis, the forces
generated along the y- and z-axes were almost equal to zero.
Therefore, the resultant force value was equal to the force
value along the x-axis. The results in terms of the forces (in
newton, N) and load deflection rate (in newton/millimeter, N
mm–1) for each of the four design of the loop springs namely
Double Delta Closing Loop, Double Vertical T Crossed
Closing Loop, Double Vertical Helical Closing Loop, and
Ricketts Maxillary Retractor are as follows. The analysis of
force and load deflection rate for the loop springs is grouped
under four heads as follows.
1. Displacement: The force value of the all four
loop springs increases with an increase in the wire
displacement; for wire dimension of 0.017" × 0.025"
and 0.019" × 0.025" as well as for stainless steel and
beta titanium material. This increase is exponential
in nature. The load deflection rate remains unaffected
with the change in displacement for a specified
dimension or a specified material (Tables 3 and 4,
Graph 1).
2. Wire material: The force value is less for beta
titanium than stainless steel if the dimensions and
displacement remain constant. The load deflection
rate follows the same pattern as the force, being
lesser for beta titanium than for stainless steel.
(Tables 3 and 4, Graph 1).
3. Wire dimension: The force value and load deflection
rate are less for 0.017" × 0.025" than for 0.019" ×
0.025" when the material and displacement remains
constant (Tables 3 and 4, Graph 1).
4. Loop spring design: The force and load deflection
rate value in terms of the design of the loop spring
in ascending order was Ricketts Maxillary Retractor
< Double Vertical Helical Closing Loop < Double
Vertical T Crossed Closing Loop < Double Delta
Closing Loop (Tables 3 and 4, Graph 1).
Also, another finding was that the force and load deflection
rate of 0.017″ × 0.025″ Double Vertical T Crossed Closing
Loop was same as that of 0.019″ × 0.025″ Double Vertical
Helical Closing for both the materials.

Table 3. Force Values for All Designs of Loop Springs (in N)

Wire

Displacement Stainless Steel Beta Titanium

Sr.No. Loop Spring Design (mm) 0.017" × 0.025" 0.019" × 0.025" 0.017" × 0.025" 0.019" × 0.025"
1 3.93 5.57 1.52 2.16
Double Delta Closing 2 7.87 11.15 3.05 4.32
1.
Loop 3 11.80 16.72 4.57 6.48
4 15.74 22.29 6.10 8.64
1 1.86 2.54 0.72 0.98
Double Vertical T 2 3.72 5.08 1.44 1.97
2.
Crossed Closing Loop 3 5.58 7.62 2.16 2.95
4 7.44 10.16 2.88 3.94
1 1.32 1.86 0.51 0.72
Double Vertical Helical 2 2.65 3.71 1.03 1.44
3.
Closing Loop 3 3.97 5.57 1.54 2.16
4 5.30 7.43 2.05 2.88
1 0.58 0.77 0.23 0.30
Ricketts Maxillary 2 1.16 1.53 0.45 0.59
4.
Retractor 3 1.74 2.30 0.68 0.89
4 2.32 3.07 0.90 1.19
Jadhav et al. 193

Table 4. Load Deflection Rate for All Designs of Loop Springs (in N mm–1)

Wire
Stainless Steel Beta Titanium
Sr.No. Loop Spring Design 0.017" × 0.025" 0.019" ×× 0.025" 0.017" ×× 0.025" 0.019" ×× 0.025"
1. Double Delta Closing Loop 3.93 5.57 1.52 2.16
2. Double Vertical T Crossed Closing Loop 1.86 2.54 0.72 0.98
3. Double Vertical Helical Closing Loop 1.32 1.86 0.51 0.72
4. Ricketts Maxillary Retractor 0.58 0.77 0.23 0.30

Graph 1. Force and Load Deflection Rate for all Loop Springs

Discussion Design stiffness (As) is dependent on factors such as

Burstone5 stated that the overall stiffness of an orthodontic
appliance (S) is determined by the wire stiffness (Ws)
and design stiffness (As). This relation is presented by the
following formula:
S = Ws × As.
interbracket distance and the incorporation of loops and coils
into the wire. Wire stiffness (Ws) can be altered by changing
the cross-sectional stiffness (CS) and/or the material stiffness
(MS) as designated by the following formula:
Ws = MS × CS.
194 Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society 53(3)
The present study determines the effects of design stiffness
(spring designs), material stiffness (stainless steel and beta
titanium), and cross-sectional stiffness (0.017" × 0.025″ and
0.019″ × 0.025″) on the force and load deflection rate in order
to assess their efficacy and suitability for clinical use using
the finite element analysis (FEA).
The magnitude of the force increased as the displacement
increased from 0 to 4 mm for all the four loop spring designs
of both 0.017" × 0.025" and 0.019" × 0.025" stainless steel
and beta titanium (Table 3 and Graph 1). This is similar to
the findings of Faulkner, Lipsett, El-Rayes, and Haberstock2
and Rodrigues, Maruo, Guariza, Tanaka, and Camargo.6 The
force increased in a linear fashion with each millimeter of
activation. This was indicative of the fact that the maximum
displacement was under the elastic limit for all the loops.
The load deflection rate was constant for all the 4 mm of
displacements.
The loops made out of beta titanium expressed less force
as compared to those of stainless steel when the design and
wire dimension and displacement remained constant (Table 3
and Graph 1). Beta titanium springs delivered 0.38 times the
force of stainless steel springs. This is similar to the findings
of Burstone5 who stated that beta titanium delivers 0.4 times
the force of stainless steel. Menghi, Planert, and Melsen7
also stated that loops fabricated of beta titanium delivered
40% of the force delivered by similar loops of stainless steel.
The modulus of the elasticity taken in the present study was
62 GPa for beta titanium and 160 GPa for stainless steel.4
Therefore, the force exerted by beta titanium was lesser
than that of the stainless steel because modulus of elasticity
determines the material stiffness, which in turn determines
the relative amount of force that a wire can deliver per unit
activation.
Goldberg and Burstone8 concluded from their study that
the force per unit displacement for beta titanium was 2.2
times less that of stainless steel on proper thermo mechanical
preparation of beta titanium. Beta titanium is less stiff than
stainless steel which has been demonstrated by numerous
studies.6,9-13
The 0.019" × 0.025" wire dimensions produced more force
and load deflection rate than 0.017" × 0.025" (Tables 3 and 4,
Graph 1). The 0.019" × 0.025" produced approximately 1.4
times more force than 0.017" × 0.025" wire dimensions. The
load deflection rate varies as the cube of the edgewise surface
for the rectangular wires.14 Similarly, in the present study
when the edgewise surface of the wire was changed from
0.017" to 0.019" dimension, the load deflection rate varied as
its cube. Thiesen, Shimizu, Valle, Valle-Corotti, Pereira, and
Conti13 concluded that as regards the force delivered by the
loops made in stainless steel, the 0.017" × 0.025" dimension
generated force levels around 26% lower than the 0.019" ×
0.025" dimension. Ferriera11 concluded with respect to the
wire dimension that 0.019" × 0.025" exerted more force than
the other dimensions.
Considering the design of the loop, the force value and
load deflection rate from greatest to least were Double Delta
Closing Loop > Double Vertical T Crossed Closing Loop >
Double Vertical Helical Closing Loop > Ricketts Maxillary
Retractor.
This difference between the spring designs is attributed to
the length of the wire involved in designing the loop. Load
deflection rate varies inversely as the cube of the length.14 This
change in length can be brought about by either increasing
the vertical height of the loop or incorporation of the helices.
The vertical height of a particular loop cannot be increased
beyond a certain limit due to anatomical considerations.
Therefore, addition of helices to the design helps to increase
the wire length. With regards to the description of the helices,
one complete turn was considered as one helix and a half
turn is considered as half helix. On comparison in terms of
incorporation of helices, Double Delta Closing Loop has
none, Double Vertical T Crossed has 4, Double Vertical
Helical Closing Loop has 3, and Ricketts Maxillary retractor
has 5. Therefore, the Ricketts Maxillary Retractor has the
least load deflection rate and force value. But the Double
Vertical T Crossed Closing Loop has 4 helices still the load
deflection is more than that Double Vertical Helical which is
due to the fact that the length of the wire incorporated for the
Double Vertical Helical Closing Loop is greater than it.
Thiesen, Shimizu, Valle, Valle-Corotti, Pereira, and
Conti13 tested stainless steel teardrop-shaped loops with
helix, measuring 8 mm in height and 4 mm in width, for 1,
2, and 3 mm activations. On quantifying the load deflection
rate of teardrop-shaped loops with and without helix, lower
magnitude values and higher constancy for the loops with
helices was found. Rodrigues, Maruo, Guariza, Tanaka, and
Camargo6 concluded that the teardrop-shaped loops with
helix produced lighter forces and had low load deflection rate
as compared to the one without helix.
Chen, Markham, and Katona15 concluded that increasing
the vertical or horizontal dimensions of a T loop reduces
the load-deflection rate. Faulkner, Lipsett, El-Rayes, and
Haberstock2 stated that the addition of the apical helix allows
the activation to be increased approximately 60% (from 1.0 to
1.6 mm) before the spring can be expected to be permanently
deformed because of yielding of the material.
The Ricketts Maxillary Retractor in beta titanium had a
spring rate of 23.45 gm mm–1 for 0.017" × 0.025" and 30.59
gm mm–1 for 0.019" × 0.025" which are both lower than the
value found by Burstone16 (33 gm mm–1) for the composite
T-loop, the centered T-loops (0.017" × 0.025", TMA) studied
by Burstone, Steenbergen, and Hanley17 (approximately 55
gm mm–1), and the canine-retraction developed by Gjessing18
(45 gm mm–1). This is indicative of its better efficiency as
retraction loop.
Bench, Gugino, and Hilgers3 verifying cobalt-chromium
0.016" × 0.016" (RMO) springs on a Double Vertical Helical
Closing Loop design, 60 mm long, found that the spring rate
was 75 gm mm–1. The load deflection rate obtained in this
Jadhav et al. 195
study for the same design of the similar length is 134.60 gm
mm–1 for 0.017" × 0.025" stainless steel, 189.66 gm mm–1
for 0.019" × 0.025" stainless steel, 52 gm mm–1 for 0.017"
× 0.025" beta titanium, and 73.14 gm mm–1 for 0.019" ×
0.025" beta titanium. The higher values obtained in stainless
steel material could be attributed to difference in the material
properties as well as the higher wire dimensions used in the
present study. The lower values of beta titanium are due to the
fact that Cobalt-Chromium delivers twice the amount of force
as beta titanium.19
Ferreira11 found that the stainless steel 0.019" × 0.025" (3M
Unitek), 0.019" × 0.025" (Morest), Titanium-molybdenum
0.017" × 0.025" (Ormco), and 0.019" × 0.025" (Ormco)
Double Delta had a spring rate of 275.9 gm mm–1, 257.5
gm mm–1, 84.9 gm mm–1, and 138.3 gm mm–1, respectively.
The Double Delta design of 0.019" × 0.025" stainless
steel, 0.017" × 0.025" beta titanium, and 0.019" × 0.025"
beta titanium in our study gave a spring rate of 567.98 gm
mm–1, 154 gm mm–1, and 220.25 gm mm–1. Comparing the
outcome of Ferreira with our study, the higher values in our
study could be attributed to the difference in the length of
the wire incorporated. The design of Ferreira incorporates
around 68 mm (32 mm for the design proper and 36 mm for
the arms which go for attachment on the linear displacement
transducer), and our study incorporates 40 mm (36 mm for
the design and 4 mm for the holding arms).
A low load deflection value is important in a loop since
it allows the orthodontist to apply light, continuous, and
controlled forces. It is desirable to have the lowest load-
deflection rate possible because with a low load-deflection
rate a large activation is required in order to build up the
needed force level. The forces would be released over longer
duration. This facilitates fewer reactivation appointments.
FEM has gained popularity as a new research tool in the
field of dentistry and orthodontics in particular. It has helped
in simulating and evaluating conditions which are difficult to
carry out in a clinical scenario. In the field of orthodontics, its
application has been primarily for structural stress analysis.
This includes studies on wire configurations, determination
of center of resistance and center of rotation of teeth, stresses
in anatomical structures such as TMJ, periodontal ligament,
jaws, and cranium as well as stresses in brackets, wires,
adhesives, etc. It is used for analysis of skeleton, tissue
growth, remodeling, degeneration, and improving designs of
appliances. FEM has been used to study stress strain levels
induced in internal structures.20 It’s application include
assessment of complex shape changes and orthodontic
tooth movement.21 It is also used as a tool for morphometric
analysis in caraniofacial biology.22 The mechanical behavior
of orthodontic wires and different design of brackets and
their contact relationship can be well modelled and simulated
by the FEM. Thus, FEM has been an important tool in the
development and improvement of orthodontic bracket and
wires design.23
FEM has a few limitations as well. One of the challenges
with FEM is modelling of the structure to be exact to its actual
configuration. Morphological traits of complex anatomical
structures are difficult to be depicted with reliability. This
is due to the practical limitation posed in assigning or
choosing the correct number and type of elements to define a
structure. Likewise, some assumptions may need to be made
while allocating boundary conditions and representations of
loading conditions. Also, FEA is based on the model which
is created for a specific research. This may not account for
all the possible naturally occurring variations. FEM cannot
accurately simulate the biological dynamics of craniofacial
structures. Variations in the material properties assigned may
change the results.
Hence, finite element research has to be refined and
validated through more clinical experimentation.
Conclusion
It is clear that the magnitude of forces and load deflection
rate generated by activation of loops depend on many
confounding factors such as wire material, wire dimensions,
and loop configurations.
1. All the four retraction loops, those of both stainless
steel and beta titanium material and 0.017" × 0.025"
and 0.019" × 0.025" wire dimensions demonstrated
increased force values as the displacement increased
by unit mm.
2. With wire material and wire dimensions remaining
the same, Ricketts Maxillary Retractor showed the
lowest force levels and load deflection rate. This was
followed, in ascending order, by Double Vertical
Helical Closing Loop, Double Vertical T Crossed
Closing Loop, and Double Delta Closing Loop.
3. With design and wire dimensions of the loop springs
remaining the same, those made from beta titanium
demonstrated lower force levels and load deflection
rate than those of stainless steel.
4. Regardless of the design and constituent wire
material of the loop springs, those of wire dimension
0.017" × 0.025" demonstrated lower force levels and
load deflection rate than those of 0.019" × 0.025".
5. With constituent wire material of the loop springs
remaining the same, same force levels were
generated by 0.017" × 0.025" Double Vertical T
Crossed Closing Loop and 0.019" × 0.025" Double
Vertical Helical Closing Loop.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
196 Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society 53(3)
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References
1. Strang RHW, Thomson WM. A Textbook of Orthodontia. 4th
ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lea & Febiger; 1958.
2. Faulkner MG, Lipsett AW, El-Rayes K, Haberstock DL. Use of
vertical loops in retraction systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop. 1991;99:328-336.
3. Bench RW, Gugino FC, Hilgers JJ. Bioprogressive therapy part
6. J Clin Orthod. 1978;12:123-139.
4. Ramegowda S, Babu A, Shailaja AM, Kumar SP. Comparative
assessment of torque expression of stainless steel, nickel
titanium, heat activated nickel titanium and titanium
molybdenum alloy wires: a finite element method study. Indian
J Orthod Dentofacial Res. 2016;2:5-13.
5. Burstone CJ. Variable-modulus orthodontics. Am J Orthod.
1981;80:1-6.
6. Rodrigues EU, Maruo H, Guariza Filho O, Tanaka O,
Camargo ES. Mechanical evaluation of space closure loops in
Orthodontics. Braz Oral Res. 2010;25:63-68.
7. Menghi C, Planert J, Melsen B. 3-D experimental identification
of force systems from orthodontic loops activated for first order
corrections. Angle Orthod. 1999;69:49-57.
8. Goldberg J, Burstone CJ. An evaluation of beta titanium alloys
for use in orthodontic appliances. J Dent Res. 1979;58:593-599.
9. Sheibaninia A, Salehi A, Asatourian A. Comparison of spring
characteristics of titanium–molybdenum alloy and stainless
steel. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9:e84-e90.
10. Verstrynge A, Van Humbeeck J, Willems G. In-vitro evaluation
of the material characteristics of stainless steel and beta-
titanium orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2006;130:460-470.
11. Ferreira MA. The wire material and cross-section effect on
double delta closing loops regarding load and spring rate
magnitude: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1999;115:275-282.
12. Blaya MB, Westphalen GH, Guimaraes MB, Hirakata LM.
Evaluation of tensile strength of different configurations of
orthodontic retraction loops for obtaining optimized forces.
Stomatologija. 2009;11:66-69.
13. Thiesen G, Shimizu RH, Valle CV, Valle-Corotti KM, Pereira
JR, Conti PC. Determination of the force systems produced by
different configurations of tear drop orthodontic loops. Dent
Press J Orthod. 2013;18:19e1-19e18.
14. Burstone CJ, Baldwin JJ, Lawless DT. The application of
continuous forces to Orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 1961;31:1-14.
15. Chen J, Markham DL, Katona TR. Effects of T-loop geometry
on its forces and moments. Angle Orthod. 2000;70:48-51.
16. Burstone CJ. The segmented arch approach to space closure.
Am J Orthod. 1982;82:361-378.
17. Burstone CJ, Steenbergen E, Hanley KJ. Modern Edgewise
Mechanics and the Segmented Arch Technique. Farmington,
CT: University of Connecticut; 1995.
18. Gjessing P. Biomechanical design and clinical evaluation of a
new canine retraction spring. Am J Orthod. 1985;87:353-362.
19. Drake SR, Wayne DM, Powers JM, Asgar K. Mechanical
properties of orthodontic wires in tension, bending, and torsion.
Am J Orthod. 1982;82:206-210.
20. Tanne K, Sakuda M, Burstone CJ. Three-dimensional
finite element analysis for stress in the periodontal tissue
by orthodontic forces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1987;92(6):499-505.
21. Cattaneo PM, Dalstra M, Melsen B. The finite element method:
a tool to study orthodontic tooth movement. J Dent Res.
2005;84(5):428-433.
22. Sameshima GT, Melnick M. Finite element-based cephalometric
analysis. Angle Orthod. 1994;64(5):343-350.
23. Ghosh J, Nanda RS, Duncanson Jr MG, Currier GF. Ceramic
bracket design: an analysis using the finite element method. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108(6):575-582.