Taken from the JCO 1980 Apr (265-272): Common Sense Mechanics Part 8 -

--------------------------------

Common Sense Mechanics

THOMAS F. MULLIGAN, DDS

Wire/Bracket Relationships

8 This discussion will appear to be academic at first, and of little use to the clinically oriented
orthodontist, but be patient. The content will increase your appreciation for the treatment
procedures that follow, which will utilize this information on a clinical level in an uncomplicated
manner. The relationship of the archwire to the brackets and tubes, prior to engagement, offers
valuable and interesting information. If a straight wire is placed over angulated brackets, a certain
angular relationship develops between the wire and the plane of the bracket slot (Fig. 95). The
brackets might be angulated as a result of the malocclusion or purposely angulated to permit
overrotations, etc. In any case, a straight wire overlying these brackets, prior to insertion of the
wire into the brackets, gives us clues regarding tooth movement. We cannot eliminate "common
sense": however, since identical force systems can produce different responses due to the biologic
nature of the environment. Teeth extrude more readily than they intrude. Certain rotations occur
more easily than others in different planes of space.

These force systems can become quite complex when more than two teeth are involved. However,
because we have thus far confined our mechanics to relatively simple situations involving minimal
placement of bands (brackets), and will soon be moving into extraction treatment involving a
greater number of bands, it seems appropriate at this time to go into a greater degree of
"exactness". For, if we can understand what is exact, we can then deviate from exactness and
begin to know the value of applying the same principles in "nonexact" terms, in order to achieve
our objectives in a practical way. In other words, we will avoid producing a complex appliance to
satisfy academic needs. Instead, we will keep the appliance simple and "read" the relationships
involved adjacent to the archwire bends as though only two teeth were involved. Disregarding the
other teeth will still allow us to get our results, as the forces transmitted to these "distant" teeth
with relatively light wires requires time, and we are more interested in the short-term movements.

Now that we know the emphasis will be on "practicality", let us not get lost with details that do
not pose a "clinical" threat. The following is presented only to create an awareness of what
happens when wire/bracket relationships change. As multiple brackets enter the picture, the
system becomes complex to apply, as it is then necessary to add the systems at the various
brackets to determine the net effect. This can be time-consuming, inexact, and impractical. If you
will read an article titled, "Force Systems from an Ideal Arch" by Burstone and Koenig (AJO, March
1974), you will appreciate the true complexity of force systems in orthodontics. At the same time, I
think you will want to utilize what you can in an efficient and simple manner, even if it means
sacrificing the details involved in exactness, particularly since teeth seldom respond in an exact
fashion.
Basically, we deal with various wire/bracket relationships created by the malocclusion, archwire
bends, or both. For practical reasons, I prefer to attain bracket alignment regardless of the force
systems produced in the process. Once this is accomplished, desirable force systems can be
attained by placing bends at specific points along the archwire. In other words, we then determine
what we want by creating our own relationships. We have already seen this accomplished during
our discussion on vertical forces and tipback bends.

So, to get a further insight as to the force systems created by wire/bracket relationships, let us
consider the variations. If we begin by using a constant interbracket width (any width) and a
center bend, it can be seen in Figure 96 that the relationship can be created by the bend in the
wire or by the malocclusion. In either case, the force system is the same. As already said, I prefer
aligning the brackets and then determining my own systems by placing the bends where needed.
If we now look at Figure 97, we can see that the bend has been moved off center, but still remains
identical to the relationship created by the malocclusion. Again, in either case the force system is
the same. Finally, in Figure 98 we see that two off-center bends have been placed, the second
being inverted, but placed equidistant from the bracket. Yet the relationship is no different than
the one produced by the malocclusion and a straight wire, so the force systems are identical. Now,
if we go back and look at Figures 96, 97, and 98, and concentrate on the angulated brackets only,
we can see what caused the change in the wire/bracket relationships. The bracket on the left in
each case remained constant in angular relationship with the archwire, while the bracket on the
right was slowly rotated clockwise. Therefore, we can readily accomplish the same by placing
bends instead, once the brackets have been aligned.

Thus far, we have been talking about center and off-center bends only and, therefore, only need
be concerned with Figures 96 and 97. But, for the sake of discussion, and so that later we can
prove that the force systems we have so far discussed in these two bends are really the case, let us
become familiar with Figure 98. After all, everything that lies between the relationships in Figures
96 and 98 is merely a transitioning of force systems.

In my graduate school days, Dr.Charles Burstone referred to Figure 96 as a symmetric bend

relationship. I have adopted the term center bend or gable bend. He referred to Figure 97 as an
asymmetric bend and Figure 98 as a step relationship. I refer to the asymmetric bend as an off-
center bend. Since the step relationship has its place in mechanics, but because I seldom utilize it
(purposely), you will not hear me refer to this relationship in my discussion of Common Sense
Mechanics as it pertains to clinical treatment.

If we can see what forces and moments MUST exist in the two extremes under discussion (Figs. 96
and 98), then we can accept the systems that exist "in between". If you are really interested in
every detail, please refer to the published material I have mentioned.

Center Bend Force System

Let us begin to determine the forces and moments present in the two extremes of the
wire/bracket relationships— the center bend and the step— by applying the requirements for
static equilibrium. Once we can prove these systems are present, by necessity, we can resume our
discussion of mechanics on a practical level. But it is only fair that you see, first, what occurs
technically.
Looking at Figure 99, a center bend, we can see that forces must be applied at four separate points
for wire/bracket engagement. Since three requirements (previously discussed) MUST be met and
ARE met to establish the static equilibrium that will and DOES exist, we can go through each step
in order. Let us start by "assuming" all four forces are equal. We don't know, yet, if they are, but
we must start somewhere. Only when all three requirements of static equilibrium are met, will we
have discovered what the actual forces are. We are not interested in any actual figures, but only
relative magnitudes.

If all four forces (activational) are equal, then the first requirement for static equilibrium is
fulfilled. That is, the sum of the vertical forces must equal zero. Since there are no horizontal
forces necessary to engage the wire into the brackets, the second requirement is automatically
fulfilled. That is, the sum of the horizontal forces must equal zero. Since the third requirement says
that the sum of all the moments, measured from ANY point must also equal zero, let us choose the
center point for convenience (Fig. 99).

Now we will determine the moments produced around this point by each force (line of force)
acting at a perpendicular distance to such point. Force A produces a clockwise moment
(activational), equal and opposite to the magnitude of the counterclockwise moment produced by
Force D. Now, Force B produces a counterclockwise moment smaller in magnitude, because it acts
at a smaller distance from this point. Force C, acting at the same distance, produces the same
magnitude, but the moment is clockwise. When we add the four moments produced around this
point, the sum is zero. Therefore, we have met all three requirements for static equilibrium, and
the orginally "assumed" forces are proven to be correct. So, we can now determine the
activational force system at each bracket.

Since Forces A and B produce a couple (pure moment) which is clockwise, and since Forces C and D
produce a counterclockwise couple (Fig. 100A), we have now arrived at the net activational force
system— two moments, equal and opposite in magnitude. Tooth movement occurs as the result
of deactivation, as in Figure 100B. From now on we can refer to this system when we discuss the
center bend and know that it must exist in order to conform with the requirements of static
equilibrium.

Step Bend Force System

Now, if we go to the step relationship, which is the other extreme under discussion, we will go
through the same analysis, again using aligned brackets with the bends placed in the wire (Fig.
101A). Since we must start somewhere, we will again "assume" that the four activational forces
shown are equal. If so, the sum of the vertical forces equals zero and the first requirement for
static equilibrium has been fulfilled. Next, the horizontal forces equal zero because there are none,
so the second requirement is, likewise, fulfilled. All that remains now is to determine that all the
moments produced around a common point also equal zero, the third and final requirement.
Using the same center point, we can readily see that Force A produces a clockwise moment, the
same as that produced by Force D. Both are clockwise and both are equal in magnitude. However,
although the moments produced by Forces B and C are equal to each other and counterclockwise,
they are smaller in magnitude than Forces A and D, because they are produced at smaller
distances. Therefore, the sum of the moments does not equal zero. Since ALL THREE requirements
are not fulfilled, the original assumption that all activational forces were equal was incorrect.
Figure 101B shows the ONLY system that meets all three requirements. First, although Forces A
and D (equal) are smaller than Forces B and C (equal), the sum of the vertical forces can be seen to
equal zero. The horizontal sum remains zero, as there are no horizontal forces. But, the third
requirement is finally met, because Force A and Force D each produce clockwise moments equal in
magnitude and opposite in direction to the counterclockwise moments produced by Forces B and
C. In spite of the fact that Forces B and C act at smaller distances, balance is maintained due to
their greater magnitudes of force. The important thing to realize is that the net activational forces
at each bracket are unequal, unlike the center bend. If we now take the forces in Figure 101B,
which have been proven to be correct, we can analyze the individual brackets for the net
activational force system. Forces A and B produce a clockwise moment at the left bracket and a
net force, as shown in Fig. 102A. At the right bracket, Forces C and D form a clockwise moment
also, with the magnitudes being the same, as well as a net force equal and opposite to the force at
the left bracket. Now that the net activational system has been determined at each bracket,
simple reversal (Fig. 102B) gives the force system acting on the teeth (deactivation).

Variations between these two extremes were shown during the discussion of tipback bends and
will be shown in the next articles dealing with extraction mechanics. It will be seen that as the
wire/bracket relationship (between the center and step configurations) undergoes angular change
relative to the archwire, clockwise moments will transition to zero and, if the relationship change
continues beyond the zero point, finally become counterclockwise. All of this simply means that
there is "Law and Order" to all of this. It is my desire that this can be useful in an everyday
practice.

Clinical Demonstrations

If you look ONLY at the two teeth mentioned, Figure 103 illustrates various center bend
relationships produced by the malocclusion itself. Anterior-posterior relationship must also be
considered, as demonstrated in Figure 103 with full wire/bracket engagement, such as with a
rectangular wire.

Figure 104 illustrates step relationships when applying the same approach. The single off-center
bend (as opposed to the step bend which actually contains two off-center bends) has already been
demonstrated many times. Figure 105 shows a rotated central incisor. A wire tied only into the
two central incisors would automatically create the off-center relationship. But, to keep matters
simple, all of the relationships mentioned and formed by the malocclusion are, for the most part,
disregarded in obtaining INITIAL bracket alignment. In some cases, however, it would be foolish to
disregard them.

The force system in the single off-center bend lies somewhere in between the center bend and
step relationships, depending on the EXACT wire/bracket angular relationship (Fig. 106). In spite of
the fact that using a constant bend, as already discussed, with variable interbracket distances
produces moments that vary, as seen in Figure 106B, the complication is taken out of it by utilizing
the differential in the system, as demonstrated with use of the tipback bend in overbite correction,
and as will be demonstrated in extraction treatment for anchorage control.

Summary
Do not let this portion of the series on Common Sense Mechanics drive you away. It was
presented to help you appreciate the need for deriving that which can be modified and made
useful in a busy practice. As you will see, the application will not be complex, but rather quite
simple.