An investigation into the characteristics of the PG

canine retraction spring

J. D. Eden, BDS, D. Orth., M. Orth., MSc, and N. E. Waters, MSc, PhD, CPhys, FlntsP.
London, England

The forces and couples produced by a model of the PG maxillary canine retraction spring (Danish
loop) when activated have been derived by using the complementary (strain) energy method. The
theoretical results of the analysis have been verified by experiments on enlarged planar models in a
special jig that, by means of strain gauges, was capable of recording the forces and couples
developed when the models were activated. Good agreement between theory and experiment was
obtained that enabled the analysis to be used with confidence to predict the characteristics of
clinical-size loops, and to compare the behavior of the PG retractor with some other maxillary canine
retraction springs. (AMJ ORTHOODENTOFACORTHOP1994;105:49-60.)

T h e PG maxillary canine retraction spring preformed version, available commercially constructed

was described by its originator Poul Gjessing in 1985, ~
and although the author discussed both its character-
istics as examined in the laboratory and the results of
a clinical evaluation of the spring, a theoretical analysis
was not presented. Intraoral views of the PG retractor
at the commencement of canine retraction and after 6
months of treatment are shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Es-
sentially the spring consists of a double ovoid helix
with a smaller occlusally placed helix, and is, in the
From the Departments of Orthodontics and Dental Materials Science, The
United Medical and Dental Schools of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospitals.
Copyright 9 1994 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
0889-5406194151.00 + 0.10 8 / ! / 3 4 6 4 0
in 0.016 • 0.022-inch stainless steel wire.
The ideal canine retraction spring should deliver a
continuous light force of suitable duration, 2 and apply
couples of suitable magnitude to prevent tilting and
rotation occurring as the tooth is retracted2
By using the principles of mechanics t'3.4 it can be
shown that for bodily movement to occur an antitilt
couple (N) needs to be applied to the crown, as well
as a retraction force (P), such that the ratio (NIP) is
equal to the perpendicular distance (d) of the center of
resistance within the root from the line action of P. A
working value of d of 11 mm for a canine with an
average root length of 16.5 mm has been put forward
by Gjessing. t How close these ideal characteristics are

Fig. 1. Intraoral views of PG retractor at commencement of canine retraction.

49
50 Eden and Waters
Fig. 2. Intraoral views of PG retractor after 6 months of treatment.
approached will depend on the particular design o f the
orthodontic retraction spring used. The (N/P) ratios
developed by a spring are o f importance in that these
control the w a y a tooth moves, and small differences
in the (N/P) ratio can make large differences in the
position o f the center o f rotation. ~-7 In general an ob-
jective assessment o f the merits o f a spring is only
possible i r a mechanical analysis is available.
The objectives o f this project were to derive the
behavior o f the spring on activation analytically by US-
ing the complementary (strain) energy method, 8 to use
the analysis once verified experimentally to determine
the characteristics o f clinical-sized PG springs, and to
compare, its behavior with that o f other springs for
which data were available.
It should be noted that the first preformed PG spring
available (type 1 spring) had the pear and the helix o f
the spring displaced in the vertical plane. In this in-
vestigation the second PG spring produced (type 2
spring) was analyzed, in which the pear and the helix
were in contact. To avoid confusion, it is also necessary
to note that the couples induced by the appliance on
the molar and canine teeth are designated M and N,
respectively.
DERIVATION OF THE THEORETICAL MODEL
Th.e complementary (strain) energy method described by
Timoshenko s was used to derive the deformation behavior of
a planar model of a type 2 PG retraction spring. This tech-
nique, which assumes that all strains are small and that the
wire behaves perfectly elastically has been described in detail
elsewhere. 9"t~The forces and couples operating on the corn-
American Jountal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
January 1994
ponents of the spring when the latter is activated are shown
in Figs. 3 and 4.
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
Enlarged planar models of the PG spring with 0.024-inch
18/8 stainless steel and 0.016 • 0.022-inch Elgiloy Blue
were fabricated by constructing two mild steel jigs, one for
each wire. The advantage of enlarged test springs is that the
dimensions and spatial geometrY may be more accurately
controlled and determined than those used clinically, and
moderate forces are produced from large accurately record-
able activations.
The diameters of the mandrels required to form the spring
on each jig and the relative position of the mandrels was
determined from a plot of the recovery of each wire after
deformation around mandrels of known diameter.'"'-" The po-
sitions of the spigots locating the mandrels on the base plate
were calculated knowing the length of each component and
its direction relative to the component preceding it. To pro-
duce a model spring, a test wire was wound under uniform
tension around the mandrels in the correct sequence, held for
10 seconds, and then carefully unwound to prevent recoil of
the wire.
Minor adjustments and any gabling were then carried out,
and the dimensions and gable angles measured with a direct
reading vernier microscope and a protractor, respectively.
Before testing, photocopies of the test springs were taken so
that any distortion, which had occurred during testing, could
be detected.
Because of the difficulties of forming the PG retractor,
only two sizes of model spring.were examined. However,
with nongabled arm springs, five different combinations of
arm lengths H, and H2 were examined for each size, and with
the dimensions constant, at least five springs with differing
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics EdeH a n d Waters 51
Vohtme 1 0 5 , No. 1

Nx.= N - PRI(I - cosg) - OR s i n g

N a = N x + QR cose - PRz(I - sine)

N3 ~ N. + QLslr~ - PLcose

N4 = N3 - Q2Rjc~ N R3 3
N = N 4 + PLCOSe + QLsine

N " N + Q2R COSe ['~0 0

p .,~..-
N ~ N6 + Ol.~ine - PLcose ~
No = N7 - Q2RjcosO N4\ N3

.0-. +PRt ..... i,o1 + o R ( , l , ~ + o o . o ) . ~1 1[

, - , o + o . c o s ~ - P, *ln~ ~ , 0:]
N~__p p.._. W~ "2
__c -N _ .

4
Figs. 3 and 4. Breakdown of appliance into its components with necessary forces and couples required
for static equilibrium.

gable angles were examined in each size. Thus, within the
restrictions imposed by the two available jigs, the design has
been changed as systematically as possible.
The experimental measurements were carried out on a
modified vernier microscope framework in which a 0.5-inch
(1.27 cm) diameter bar attached to the lateral cross-slide car-
ried a vertical mild steel cantilever beam at the free end. This
beam, to which one end of a spring could be clamped between
two circular horizontal disks, was fitted with three sets of
strain gauges. With a spring clamped at the end of one arm
in a rigid support and the end of the other arm clamped in a
support capable of moving along the bed of the instrument a
known distance, these strain gauges allowed the forces P, Q,
and the couple M acting for any known displacement x to be
recorded. A model spring mounted in this way is shown in
Fig. 5.
The necessary dimensions of a clinical-sized PG spring
and the angles a and 13 were obtained by averaging the mea-
52 Eden and Waters
,!] 4~
O NIO
Fig, 5. Model retraction spring mounted on apparatus between fixed clamp (left) and vertical mild steel
cantilever beam attached by a 0.5-inch diameter bar to lateral cross-slide of a modified vernier micro-
scope (not shown).
surements from three prefabricated type 1 PG retractors
(Rocky Mountain Co., Denver, Colo.). An accurate value of
the flexural rigidity (EI) of the 18/8 stainless steel and Elgiloy
Blue wire used for spring fabrication was obtained by carrying
out load-deflection measurements on straight lengths mounted
as cantilever beams? ~ A mean El value for the prefabricated
springs was obtained from straight sections cut from the arms.
RESULTS
The results of the theoretical analysis are given in
the Appendix. The derived expressions that will allow
the determination of the required spring characteristics,
namely, the lateral stiffness S (i.e., dPIdx) and the
ratios (N/P) (M/P) and (Q/P) are written in the BASIC
programmer language for ease of transcription into a
computer program.
The experimental and theoretical results obtained
on 10 18/8 stainless steel and 11 Elgiloy Blue model
PG retractors of differing design are given in Tables I
and II. The nomenclature used is given in Figs. 3
and 4.
The experimental spring stiffness, S (dPIdr), was
obtained by carrying out linear regression analyses on
the retraction force (P) versus deflection (x) plots. Typ-
ical results for springs of these two materials are shown
in Figs. 6, A and 7, A. In accordance with the predic-
tions of the analysis each force-deflection relationship
was linear with more than 95% of the variation in P
for each plot explained by the calculated regression
equation.
Typical results for the variation of the posterior cou-
ple M with retraction force P for the same two springs
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
January 1994
!-__,
are shown in Figs. 6, B and 7, B. Again, as predicted
by the analysis, linear relationships were found. Al-
though not shown, linear relationships were also found
between the vertical force Q and the retraction force P.
Linear regression analysis enabled the slopes of these
two relationships (i.e., dMldP and dQldP) to be de-'
termined.
The last three columns in Tables I and II show the
experimental values of the spring stiffness S, (dMIdP),
and (dQIdP) for each model spring examined compared
with the values of these spring characteristics deter-
mined from the analysis. Probable errors for the stiff-
ness S and (dMldP) values have been calculated as-
suming errors of • 1.0 mm in the dimensions H~, H2
(the distal and mesial arms) and HT (the height of the
ovoid helix), • mm in R,, R2, or R3 (the radii of
the curved components in the forming sequence),
+ 1.0 ~ in the angles a, [3, and + 5 % in the flexural
rigidity (EI). For the model springs R , = Rz, this is
indicated by R~z in the tables.
DISCUSSION
From Tables I and II it may be seen that the agree-
ment between the experimental and calculated spring
characteristics is, in general, good for the stiffness re-
suits, with 80% of the experimental values lying within
the probable error range. The agreement between ex-
periment and theory for (dM/dP) appears to be less
satisfactory with only 43% v?ithin the error bounds, but
this is due to the insensitivity of the digital strain gauge
output to small changes in M. The agreement between
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Eden alzd Waters 53
Volume 105, No. I

Table I. Dimensional details of I0 18/8 stainless steel model springs with comparison
of experimental and theoretical spring characteristics
SUMMARIZED RESULTS FOR 18/8 STAINLESS STEEL SPRING

,.,,,..~ ,2. ,"-'1 ,'-'*, ,L'I ,~, ,,~, ,Z, ,...'," ,'J-',,- ,. '-k. ,.'-",__
2.91 2.1)7 I~L$ 13.S~
F 20 20 4.5 II 3? 0 0 147000 9 1121 9 I.:3~ ~ O.OQ

2.5T 2.01 146 12.?'1~ 0 O0O

21 211 45 t 37 0 0 147000
9 fl~O * 1,41

2.9? ~03 14.3 17.251 0.1104 0.~qS

27 13 45 II 37 0 O 147000
9 G22 9 I.II3

2.0~ 3.12 20.1 17.31 0.~ ~3~

3S It 45 II 37 0 0 1470QO
9 0.23 * I,O?

2.91 ~LIO 7.34 7.0? -0.1?3 - 0.714

10 25 4S 9 37 0 0 147000
9 0.22 9 0.99

3.02 290 12.3 1455 O0 000

~I.NI3 ~1~ 241 4S 9 3? 0 II 1470Q0
9 0.~1 9 1.57

3.(~ 2.N ILl 15.91

37 0 18~5 1470~D 0.0 00~
9 0.21 + 1.62

2.8~ 2.~3 27-1 I&li

(X.HO 29 2tl 45 tP 37 0 30 147~ 0.21H1 0.17
9 0.22 + 1.82 !

OLNtO 28 29 4.5 So 37 l0 ~ 147~ 2.(53 2.11 511~ &17

9 0.21 9 9 u,.03 -0.130 0.00
.1.34
2.11 3-0 -3.13 -I,13
DI.H6 29 2i 4.5 9 37 21 0 147~00 "0.3~2 -0.1~2
9 0.22 -I.07

Table II. Dimensional details of 11 Elgiloy model springs with comparison of experi-
mental and theoretical spring characteristics

2O ] 1 25 0 0 tl~ 3.641 1.72 &.~$ 8.?1 O.T) 0.00

_e 0.37 9 l.&q
13 2? 3 I 2 5 0 0 61~ 3.1? 3.8~ 1.~7 ~.~l -0.16~ -0.25
_*o.~ *. t.O?
28 10 3 7 25 0 0 419CQ 3.82 $.q6 13.? 11.)9 0.2l& O.~O
9 0.~,O _* 1.06
DLII4 35 3.~ 7 7 2~ 0 O 61900 4.Or) 1.21 t&.O 11.16 0 . 2 4 4 O. ~411
2 0.43 2 1.1~
2O 2O 3 7 2~ I 0 0 IlqOO 3.47 ).Tt 1.54 I.Z2 O.GQ 0.00
I s 0.37 ~ t.t9

2'.1 ~ ) 7 250 I0 41ql~ 3.63 3.81 O.FII 9.117 O.CO O.~KI

0.3q ! 1.57
2O ?0 3 ? 25 0 2O 61~0 &.11 3.q3 11.7 11.15 0.(~ O.I1
_4 0.41 * I.~0
tq~ ~ ) 7 I~ 3025 4Iql~ 3.~$ 4.31 0.00 -O.q5 -0.181 O.OO
t. 0.~5 #. 1.10
2O ~ ) ? :25 ?060 61qO0 3.71 4.~9 5.16 5.Z3 -0.12& O.OO
2 ~ 21.13
2O ) 7 25 O 23 61~ 3.75 $.Slk 8.82 I1,$$ -0.0~? 0.11'
JL 0.41 .9. I.?&
m~7 ~0 ~ 3 ? 1'5 200 tlqllQ 4.to 2.3"970"&1 0 . 9 ~ 1"r -O.Z)? -o.14

the theoretical and experimentally determined values of The general conclusions, which ignore any possible
(dQ/dP) is again satisfactory taking into account the frictional effects in the brackets, are as follows:
low values of Q recorded, and the sensitivity of the
strain gauge output. 1. The retraction force P induced on activating a
Figs. 8 and 9 show the predicted value of retractor is directly proportional to the displace-
(dM/dP),t,,.,, plotted against the slope of the best straight ment (x).
line (dM/dP),,~, obtained by regression analysis from 2. The horizontal stiffness (S) is directly propor-
the couple (M) versus retraction force (P) data for each tional to the ftexural rigidity (El) of the wire
spring. The correlation for both series of springs is good used and varies only slightly with the position
with 82% and 88% of the variation in (dMIdP),t,,.,, ex- of the loop or with gabling of the arms.
plained by the regression equation. 3. On activating springs with gabled arms, an initial
54 Eden and Waters American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
January 1994

STAINLESS STEEL DLN 9. H1--28. H2=28. A=0 B=30, ELGILOY DLN 12. H1=20. H2=20, A=0 1~=20.
/
25- .-SY 20 i / / ~
/ - / ' ,~ //~
/ 7 / ~ j
/ /" 9
.'~ 18-
/"tL 4
../'. ~n '
~. 20
,J
,/
- " ~" ~" 16 -

~ 14-
e-
o ~.~ ,-
/ 0 ,
,:z
~ 15. 12-
n- Iz
10-

10 I 1 I i I 8 i i i

A 0 1 2 3 4 5 A 0 1 2 3 4
I-t
Deflection X/turn. Deflection X/ram.

800 -
500
/ /
/ .
s
p
/
700 -
E
,r
/(. -a--; -
400
O / /,.- Q.
u 600 :3
0
o

500 ~/'gT i - - - i . . . . i
15 20 25 300 , , , , , ,

B Relraction Force P/g. S 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Retraction Force Pig.

Fig. 6. A, Variation of retraction force P with activation x for a Fig. 7. A, Variation of retraction force P with activation x for an
model retractor made with 18/8 stainless steel wire. B, Variation Eligiloy Blue model retractor. B, Variation of posterior couple
of posterior couple M with retraction force P for the same model M with retraction force P for the same model retractor as A.
retractor as A.

contraction occurs, which increases with in- oppositely directed vertical forces (Q) are in-
crease in gable angle. duced at either end of the spring. Initially, the
4. The larger the pear-shaped loops, the lower the force on the tooth attached to the shorter arm
horizontal stiffness. (normally the canine) will be extrusive. The
5. With nongabled arms, both M and N, the pos- magnitude of Q is dependent on the degree of
terior and mesial couples, are independent of El, gabling, the position of the loop along the span,
but proportional to P, the horizontal retraction and increases linehrly with increase in the re-
force and hence also to the horizontal deflection traction force P.
X. These general conclusions are in agreement with pre-
6. The couples M and N are only equal in magni- vious work carried out on retraction springs. 5.7.m
tude if the arms of the spring are of equal length. The good agreement obtained between experiment
7. If the arms are gabled, the couples M and N and theory allows the analysis to be used to examine
induced on aligning the arms with zero retraction the characteristics of clinical-size retractors, and to
force are dependent on both El and the magni- compare these with the behayior of other types of re-
tude of the gable angles. Thereafter both couples traction spring.
increase (or decrease) linearly with P and hence A direct comparison of the predicted behavior of a
with the horizontal deflection x. clinical-sized loop with the results obtained b y
8. Unless the arms are of equal length, equal and Gjessing' is difficult as his apparatus was not provided
American Journal of Ortlugdontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Eden and Waters 55
Volume 105, No. I

(dM/dP)theo

:ii

_i~, ~ , , , , , , , i , , , , , ,
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
(dM/dP)oxptl
Fig. 8. Variation of theoretical slope (dMIdP),,.o with experimental slope (dMIdP).xp, for model 18/8
stainless steel springs.

(dld/dP)theo

ELGILOY

10

I I ! I I I I I
-2 0 2 4 $ 8 10 12 14 16
(dM/dP)exptl

Fig. 9. Variation of slope (dMIdP)r,o with (dMIdP).,p, for model Elgiloy springs.

T a b l e III. Comparison of the predicted spring characteristics of nongabled and gabled PG

retractor with various other springs
Charakcterlstlcs of 8 o m e Retraction Components

Retraction Stiffnees M/P Q/P El P

Component (g/mm) (mrn) {g cm~1 (g)
o~,u~ "-IJ'- 0.47 5O

0.31 5O

Or U zooo 0.57 5O
w.h emil

ClOeedU Ioo~ " ~ 0.48 .TO

wflrl helx

RlCkett4 - ~ 0-3 SO
Relrl~ctor

3.0 5O
~traN~t~

I ~ Rgtr~cto~ 0.35 5O

1~3 Relroct or " - ' ~ 9 -I.2~ 5O

56 Eden and Waters American Journal of Orthodontics and Dcntofacial Orthopedics
January 1994

40
(M/P)/mm, (N/P)/mm (Q/P) i

Up'
30
O/e

20 2

N/P
1
10
0

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
DISTALARMLENGTH(H1)/mm; (Ha-3mm)
( A = O ; B = 45)
Fig. 10. Predicted variation of M/P, NIP, and QIP ratio with deactivation of clinical-sized spring with
gabled arms (at beginning of treatment H1 = 10 mm, H2 = 3 ram, a = O, 13 = 45").

a (u/p)/mm, (N/e)/mm ( O / e ) ,.

..,'x_
41 ./,- ~ ,-~.1

0 t t I w t -4).4
3 4 5 II 7 8 9 I0
DISTALARM LENGTH(H1)/mrn; (H2:3mm)
(A:O;B:O)
Fig. 11. Predicted variation of antitilt couple N, molar couple M, and axial force O as treatment proceeds
for clinical-sized retractor with nongabled arms and with originally a 13 mm span.

with the means for registering the vertical forces in-
duced, and the position of the loop within the span is
not recorded. A further difficulty is that both arms of
the theoretical model are straight, whereas the distal
arm of Gjessing's spring was provided with an upward
sweep. None of these factors should influence the stiff-
ness, and the predicted stiffness of a spring with the
dimensions as taken from Fig. 7 of Gjessing's article
is approximately 60 gm/mm taking the flexural rigidity
(EI) of the 0.016 • 0.022-inch wire at 560 gm/cm 2.
The spring stiffness is critically sensitive to minor
changes in geometry, however, and a slightly larger
spring would have a stiffness of 50 gm/mm close to
the value recorded by Gjessing.
Despite the difference in geometry, the predicted
behavior pattern for the N I P and M I P moment to force
ratios at the canine and premolar brackets, respectively,
are broadly in line with the values quoted by Gjessing,
minor differences in these ratios being attributable to
the effect of the vertical force component. Thus, for
exampl e, with H I greater than H2, et = 0 ~ 13 = 45 ~
for an activation producing a retraction force P of be-
tween approximately 20 and 100 gm, the N I P ratio is
larger than the M I P ratio, and both ratios increase as
retraction proceeds, reaching large values as the spring
becomes deactivated, as shown in Fig. 10. Again, an
increase in the 13 gable angle theoretically reduces the
M I P ratio in agreement with Gjessing's experimental
results.
The variation of the three spring characteristics
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofaclal Orthopedics
Volume 105, No. I
80 ( M / P ) / m m , (N/P)/mrn
t t
0 20 40
RrrRACTION rORC"
Fig. 12. Predicted variation of antitilt couple N, molar couple M, and axial force Q as treatment proceeds
for a clinical-sized retractor with orginally a 13 mm span and with arms gabled (a = 0, 13 = 45~
M/P, N/P, and Q/P as treatment proceeds for a clin-
ical-sized spring with an initial span of 13 mm and with
the retraction force assumed constant at 100 gm for a
spring with nongabled arms and with the arms gabled
(a = 0 ~ 13 = 45 ~ is shown in Figs. 11 and 12, re-
spectively. Whereas the antitilt couple to force ratio
(N/P) of the ungabled spring varies from 4.0 to 4.9
over the course of treatment, the gabled spring has an
NIP ratio over the same range of between 10.7 to 16.1.
This result once again is in reasonable agreement with
Gjessing's results.
A comparison of the predicted characteristics of a
nongabled PG retractor with various other nongabled
retraction springs is given in Table 11I at the com-
mencement of treatment for a span of 13 mm. It may
be seen that the stiffness of the prefabricated PG re-
tractor is roughly comparable to an open or closed U
loop fabricated from 0.4 mm diameter wire with 8 mm
leg length and is less flexible than U loops with a helix I~
or a standard Ricketts retractor, z4"*~ In effect the ad-
vantage of a double loop design is more than counter-
acted by the use o f a rectangular wire with a higher El
in the prefabricated PG retractors. The N / P ratio of
approximately 5 o f the ungabled PG retractor is again
similar to either an open or closed U loop and is lower
than U loops with helices. Here the advantage of a tall
loop is reduced by the presence of the helix below the
double pear-shaped loop.
Clinical evaluation of the PG spring, in common
with other retraction springs, is made difficult by in-
dividual patient variability. However, in general it has
been found that the spring tends to tip the maxillary
canine distally during retraction (suggesting that the
NIP ratio is too low) unless the canine arm is gabled
io approximately 45 ~ Although gabling by this amount
Eden and Waters 57
Co/P)
0.4
0.2
-0.2
l I I .-0.4
80 80 I00 120
(P)/u
should theoretically produce an excessively high N/P
ratio during deactivation, which should cause the canine
to tip mesially, it has been found clinically that this
does not occur because the spring distorts on insertion
thereby reducing the gable angle. Excessive stress re-
laxation and undesirably large retraction forces can be
produced by overactivation; for this reason activation
should be confined to 1 mm as recommended by Gjess-
ing. z Since the present analysis is concerned with de-
formations in the plane of the spring, the ability of the
latter to inhibit rotation cannot be assessed. Clinical
observation, however, suggests that the recommended
amount of lateral curvature helps to minimize this ten-
dency. The PG spring is bulky, and the height of the
pear is limited by the depth of the buccal sulcus. It
should be noted that, as with other retraction compo-
nents, a reduction in the height of the spring will not
only significantly decrease the flexibility but will also
reduce the antitilt couple/force ratio.
REFERENCES
I. Gjessing P. Biomechanical design and clinical evaluation of a
new canine retraction spring. AM J ORTIIODDENTOFACORTItOP
1985;87:353-61.
2. Reitan K. Some factors determining the evaluation of forces in
orthodontics. AM J ORntot> 1957;43:32-4.
3. Synge JL. The tightness of teeth considered as a problem con-
cerning the equilibrium of a thin incompressible elastic mem-
brane. Philos Trans R Soc Lond, 1933; Series A231:435-70.
4. Burstone CA'.The mechanics of the segmented arch technique.
Angle Orthod 1966;36:99-120.
5. YangTY0 BaldwinJJ. Analysisof space closingsprings in ortho-
dontics. J Biomech 1974;7:21-8.
6. Baeten L. Canine retraction: a photoelastic study. AMJ ORrt~ot>
1975;67:11-23.
7. Burstone CJ, Koenig It. Optimizing anterior and canine retrae-
tion~ AM J OR'ntOD1976;70:1-19.
58 Eden and Waters American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
January 1994

8. Timoshenko S. Strength of materials. 3rd ed. Princeton, New 14. Ricketts RM. Development of retraction sections. Found Orthod
Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1955:328-34. Res Newslett 1974;5:41-4.
9. Waters NE. The mechanics of buccal canine retraction springs 15. Warwick-Brown MM. An investigation into the characteristics
for removable orthodontic appliances. Br J Orthod 1982;9:164- of the Ricketts maxillary canine retractor IM.Se. report]. Lon-
72. don: University of London, 1987.
10. Waters NE. The mechanics of asymmetric retraction loops used
Reprint requests to:
in fixed appliance therapy. J Biomech 1990;23:1093-102.
Dr. N. E. Waters
11. Waters NE. A method for characterizing the elastic deformability
Department of Dental Materials Science
of orthodontic wires. Dent Practit 1972;22:289-95.
United Medical and Dental Schools
12. lngram SB, Gipe DP, Smith RJ. Comparative range of ortho-
of Guy's and St. Thomas's Hospital
dontic wires. AM J OI~TIIODDEN'rOFACORTIIOP 1986;90:296-
University of London
307.
London SEI 9RT
13. Waters NE, Stephens CD, }touston WJB. Physical characteristics
England
of orthodontic wires and archwires--Part 1. Br J Orthod
1975 ;2:15-2,~

APPENDIX
Analytically derived expressions for the characteristics of the PG retraction spring
T h e f o l l o w i n g e x p r e s s i o n s , written in B A S I C for e a s e o f a s s e m b l y into a c o m p u t e r p r o g r a m , m a y b e d e r i v e d for
the retraction f o r c e P, d e f l e c t i o n x, m o l a r c o u p l e M , c a n i n e c o u p l e N , vertical f o r c e Q , and s t i f f n e s s S. T h e input
r e q u i r e d is H I , H2, R I , R2, R3, liT, A 0 , B0, and G , w h e r e the m e s i a l and distal a r m s , o f l e n g t h H1 and H2, are
g a b l e d at a n g l e s A 0 and B0, r e s p e c t i v e l y , the d r o p radius is R I , and the p e a r radii R2 and R3 ( w i t h R 2 < R3) and
the overall h e i g h t o f the p e a r is HT. G d e n o t e s the flexiaral rigidity (El) o f the w i r e . T h e s e n s e s o f the forces and
c o u p l e s are as s h o w n in Figs. 3 a n d 4.

N = -2*G*B2*(D2*X - D I * ( A 0 + B0) + Y * F 3 / B 2 ) / F I
Q = (2*G*Y - P'A2 - N*.C2)/B2
M = N + Q * ( H I + H2)
MI = N + P*ZI8 +Q'Z19
DMP = -((D2/E2)*(I - (C2/B2)*(HI + ti2)) + A2*(Itl + H2)/B2)
DMPI = -((D2/E2)*(I - C2*Z!9/B2) - ZI8 + A2*ZI9/B2)
DQP = (D2*C2)/(B2*E2) - A2/B2
S = 2*G*B2*E2/FI

T h e f o l l o w i n g sUbSldary e x p r e s s i o n s are also required:

D = R3 - R2 : L0 = H T - (R3 + R2) :L = S Q R ( ( L 0 + D ) * ( L 0 - D)) :TO = A T N ( D / L )

PI = 3 . 1 4 1 5 9 : A0 = A*PI/180 :B0 = B * P I / 1 8 0 :UI = S I N ( B 0 )
VI = COS(B0) : U2 = SIN(A0) :V2 = C O S ( A 0 ) :U3 = S I N ( T 0 )
V3 = C O S ( T 0 ) 9 U4 = SIN(2*B0) :V4 = C O S ( 2 * B 0 ) :U5 = S I N ( 2 * A 0 )
V5.= COS(2*A0) : U6 = SIN(2*T0) :V6 = C O S ( 2 * T 0 ) :U7 = U I * U I
V7 -- V I * V 1 : U8 = U 2 * U 2 :V8 = V 2 * V 2 :U9 = U 3 * U 3
V9 = v 3 * v 3 : Ul0 = 1 - Ul :VI0 = 1 - VI :Ull = 1 - U2
V I I = 1 - V2 : U 1 2 = 1 - U3 :VI2 = 1 - V3 : W l = S I N ( A 0 + B0)
W 2 = C O S ( A 0 + B0) : Z I = H 2 * U I q- R I * V I : Z 2 = H2*VI - RI*UI
Z3 = I t 2 * U I - R I * V I 0 - R2
ZA = Z3 + R 2 * U 3 - L ' V 3 :Z5 = H 2 * V 1 - RI~:UI + R 2 * V 3 + L ' U 3 : Z 6 = Z4 - R3*U3
Z7 = Z5 - R3*V3 :Z8 = Z5 - 2*R3*V3 :Z9 = Z4 + L ' V 3 : Z I 0 = Z8 + L ' U 3 + 2*R2*V3
ZI2 = ZI0 + L'U3:Z13 = Z4 - R3*U3 : Z14 = Z12 - R 3 * V 3 : Z15 = Z I 2 - 2 * R 3 * V 3
Z I 6 = Z4 + L ' V 3 - R 2 * U 3 : Z I 7 = Z15 + L ' U 3 + R 2 * V 3 : ZI8 = ZI6 + R2*V2 - tlI*U2
Z I 9 = Z17 + R 2 * U 2 + H I * V 2 : HI2 = HI*HI : HI3 = HI2*H1
H22 = H 2 * H 2 H23 = H 2 2 * H 2 : RI2 = RI*R1 : RI3 = RI2*RI
R22 = R 2 * R 2 R23 = R 2 2 * R 2 : R32 = R 3 * R 3 : R33 = R 3 2 * R 3
LI2 = L*L LI3 = L12*L : SZI = ZI*ZI : SZ2 = Z2*Z2
SZ3 --- Z 3 * Z 3 S Z 4 = Z4*ZA : SZ5 = Z 5 * Z 5 :"SZ6 = Z6*Z6
SZ7 = Z 7 * Z 7 SZ8 = Z 8 * Z 8 : SZ9 = Z9*Z9 : SZI0 = Z10*Z10
SZI2 = ZI2*ZI2 : SZI4 = ZI4*ZI4 : SZI3 = Z13*ZI3 : SZI5 = ZI5*Z15
SZI6 = Z16*ZI6 : SZ17 = Z I 7 * Z I 7 : SZI8 = ZI8*ZI8
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Eden and Waters 59
Volume 105, No. 1

All = 2 " 1 1 2 3 " U 7 / 3 + 2 * R I * S Z I * ( 2 * P I - B0) + 4 * R I 2 * Z I * U I + R I 3 * ( 2 * P I - B0 - U 4 / 2 )

AI2 = 2 * R 2 * ( S Z 3 * ( P I / 2 - TO) + S Z 9 * ( P I - 2"'I"0) + S Z 1 6 * ( P I / 2 + A 0 - TO))
AI21 = 2 * R 2 2 * ( 2 * Z 3 * V 3 - 2 * Z 9 * ( P I - 2 * T 0 ) * U 3 + 4 * Z 9 * V 3 + 2 * Z I 6 * ( V 3 + U2))
AI3 = 2 * R 2 3 * ( P I - 2 * T 0 + AO/2 + U 9 * ( P I - 2*T0) - 4 * U 3 * V 3 + U 5 / 4 + U6) + 8 * L * S Z 4
AI4 = LI2*8*ZA*V3
A141 = 2*LI3*4*V9/3 + 2*R3*(PI + 2*T0)*(SZ6 + SZI3)
AI5 = - 8 * R 3 2 * V 3 * ( Z 6 + Z I 3 ) + 4 * R 3 3 * ( P I / 2 + TO - U 6 / 2 )
AI51 = 2*(HI*SZI8 + ItI2*ZI8*U2 + HI3*U8/3)
AI = All + AI2 + AI21 + AI3 + AI4 + AI41 + A15 + A I 5 1
BII = H 2 3 * U 4 / 3 + 2 * Z I * Z 2 * R I * ( 2 * P I - B0) + 2 * Z 2 * R I 2 * U I + R I 3 * U 7 + 2 * R I 2 * Z I * ( V I I )
Bill = 2 * R 2 * ( Z 2 * Z 3 * ( P I / 2 - TO) + Z 9 * Z I 0 * ( P I - 2 * T 0 ) + Z I 6 * Z 1 7 * ( P I / 2 + A 0 - TO))
BI2 = 2*R22*(Z3*(I - U3) + Z 2 * V 3 - ZI0*U3*(PI - 2*T0) - Z9*V3*(PI - 2*T0)
+ 2 * Z I 0 * V 3 + Z I 7 * ( V 3 + U2) + Z I 6 * ( U 3 - V2))
BI3 = 2*R23*((PI - 2*T0)*U3*V3 - 3"V9/2 + U9/2 - V 8 / 2 ) + 2 * L * Z 4 * ( Z 5 + Z8 + Z I 2 )
+ Z4*ZI5*2*L
BI31 = L I 2 * V 3 * ( Z 5 + Z8 + Z I 2 + Z I 5 )
BI4 = 2*R3*(PI + 2*T0)*(Z6*Z7 + ZI3*ZI4) - 4*R32*V3*(Z7 + ZI4)
BI5 = 2*tlI*ZI8*ZI9 + HI2*(ZI9*U2 - ZI8*V2) - tt13"U5/3
BI = BII + BI2 + BI3 + BI4 + BI5 + Bill + BI31

CII = H 2 2 * U I + 2 * R I * ( Z I * ( 2 * P I - B0) + R I * U I ) + 2 * R 2 * ( Z 3 * ( P I / 2 - T O )
+ Z I 6 * ( P I / 2 + A 0 - TO) + Z 9 * ( P I - 2*T0))
C12 = 2 * R 2 2 * ( 4 * V 3 - U 3 * ( P I - 2 * T 0 ) + U2) + 8*L*ZA
C13 = 4 * L I 2 * V 3 + 2 * R 3 * ( P I + 2 * T 0 ) * ( Z 6 + Z I 3 ) - 8 * R 3 2 * V 3 + 2"111"Z18 + H I 2 * U 2
CI = CII + C12 + C13

A21 = H 2 3 * U 4 / 3 + 2 * R I * Z I * Z 2 * ( 2 * P I - B0) + 2 * R I 2 * ( Z I * ( V I - I) + Z 2 * U I ) + R I 3 * U 7
A22 = 2 * R 2 * ( Z 2 * Z 3 * ( P I / 2 - T O ) + Z 9 * Z I 0 * ( P I - 2 * T 0 ) + Z I 6 * Z I 7 * ( P I / 2 + A 0 - TO))
A23 = 2 * R 2 2 * ( Z 3 * U I 2 + Z2*V3 - Z9*V3*(PI - 2*T0) - Z I 0 * U 3 * ( P I - 2*T0)
+ 2 * Z I 0 * V 3 + Z I 7 * ( V 3 + U2) + Z I 6 * ( U 3 - V2))
A24 = 2*R23*(-3*V9/2 - V 8 / 2 + U 9 / 2 + (PI - 2 * T 0 ) * U 3 * V 3 )
+ 2 * L * Z 4 * ( Z 5 + Z8 + Z I 2 ) + 2 * L * Z 4 * Z I 5
A25 = L I 2 * V 3 * ( Z 5 + Z8 + Z I 2 + ZI5) + 2*R3*(PI + 2 * T 0 ) * ( Z I 3 * Z I 4 + Z6*Z7)
A26 = -4*R32*V3*(Z7 + ZI4) + 2*HI*ZI8*ZI9 - HI2*(ZIS*V2 - Z19*U2) - H13*U5/3
A2 = A21 + A 2 2 + A23 + A 2 4 + A25 + A 2 6

B21 = 2 * H 2 3 * V 7 / 3 + 2 * R I * Z 2 * ( Z 2 * ( 2 * P I - B0) + 2 * R I * ( V I - 1))

+ 2 * R I 3 * ( P I - B 0 / 2 + U 4 / 4 ) + 2 * R 2 * ( ( P I / 2 - T 0 ) * S Z 2 + (PI - 2*T0)*SZI0
+ (PI/2 + A0 - T0)*SZI7)
B22 = 4 * R 2 2 * ( Z 2 * U I 2 - Z I 0 * ( P I - 2 * T 0 ) * V 3 + Z I 7 * ( U 3 - V2))
+ 2 * R 2 3 * ( P i - 2 * T 0 + A 0 / 2 - U 6 + (PI - 2 * T 0 ) * V 9 - U 5 / 4 )
B23 = 2 * L * ( S Z 5 + SZ8 + S Z I 2 + S Z I 5 ) + 2 * L I 2 * U 3 * ( - Z 5 + Z8 - ZI2 + ZI5)
+8*LI3*U9/3 + 2*R3*(PI + 2*T0)*(SZ7 + SZI4)
B24 = 2 * R 3 3 * ( P I + 2 * T 0 + U6) + 2 * H I * Z I 9 * ( Z I 9 - HI*V2) + 2*HI3*V8/3
B2 = B21 + B22 + B23 + B24

C21 = I t 2 2 " V 1 + 2 * R I * ( Z 2 * ( 2 * P I - B0) - R I * V I 0 )

+ 2 * R 2 * ( Z 2 * ( P I / 2 - TO) + Z I 0 * ( P I - 2*T0) + Z I 7 * ( P I / 2 + A 0 - TO))
C22 = 2 " R 2 2 " ( I - (PI - 2 * T 0 ) * V 3 - V2) + 2 * L * ( Z 5 + Z8 + Z I 2 + Z I 5 )
+2*R3*(PI + 2*T0)*(Z7 + ZI4) + HI*(2*ZI9 - tll*V2)
C2 = C21 + C22

A31 = H 2 2 * U I + 2 * R I * ( Z I * ( 2 * P I - B0) + R I * U I )
+ 2 * R 2 * ( Z 3 * ( P I / 2 - TO) + Z 9 * ( P I - 2*T0) + Z I 6 * ( P I / 2 + A0 - TO))
A32 = 2 * R 2 2 * ( 4 * V 3 + U 2 - (PI - 2 * T 0 ) * U 3 ) + 8 * L ' Z 4 + 4 * L 1 2 * V 3
A33 = 2*R3*(PI + 2*T0)*(Z6 + ZI3) - 8*R32*V3 + Hl*(2*ZI8 + HI*U2)
A3 = A31 + A 3 2 + A 3 3
60 Eden and Waters American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
January 1994

B31 = H22*VI + 2*RI*(Z2*(2*PI - B0) - R I * V I 0 )

+ 2*R2*(Z2*(PI/2 - TO) + Z10*(PI - 2*T0) + Z17*(PI/2 + A0 - TO))
+ 2 * R 2 2 * ( V l l - (PI - 2*T0)*V3)
B32 = 2*L*(Z5 + Z8 + Z I 2 + Z15) + 2*R3*(PI + 2 * T 0 ) * ( Z 7 + Z14) + HI*(2*Z19 - HI*V2)
B3 = B31 + B32

C3 = 2"(H2 + RI*(2*PI - B0) + R2*(2*PI - 4*T0 + A0) + 4*L + 2 * R 3 * ( P I + 2*T0) + H I )

DI = A I * B 2 - A2*BI : D2 = A3*B2 - A2*B3 : E1 = B2*CI - B I * C 2

E2 = B2"C3 - B3"C2 : FI = DI*E2 - D2*E1 : F2 = BI*E2 - B3*EI
F3 = DI*B3 - B I * D 2 : Y -- H2*W1 - RI*(V2 - W2) - R2*(V2 - 1)
XI = P*FI/(2*G*B2*E2) : X2 = EI*(A0 + B0)/E2
X3 = Y*F2/(E2*B2) : X = X1 + X2 + X3

BOUND VOLUMES AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS

Bound volumes of the AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DEN'TO-
FACIAL ORTHOPEDICS are available to subscribers (only) for the 1994 issues from
the Publisher, at a cost of $64.50 ($80.02 Canada and 575.50 international) for
Vol. 105 (January-June) and Vol. 106 (July-December). Shipping charges are in-
cluded. E a c h bound volume contains a subject and author index and all advertising
is removed. Copies are shipped within 60 days after publication of the last issue
in the volume. The binding is durable buckram with the journal name, volume
number, and year stamped in gold on the spine. Paymetzt must accompany all
orders. Contact M o s b y - Y e a r Book, Subscription Services, 11830 Westline Indus-
trial Dr., St. Louis, MO 63146-3318, USA; telephone (314)453-4351 or (800)325-
4177.
S u b s c r i p t i o n s m u s t be in force to qualify. B o u n d volumes are not available
in place of a r e g u l a r J o u r n a l s u b s c r i p t i o n .