ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Comparison of stainless steel and

titanium-molybdenum alloy closing loop
archwires using numeric simulation
model based on finite element method
Vaishali Mall,a Veera Bhosale,b Gauri Vichare,c and Amol Patila
Navi Mumbai, Pune, and Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Introduction: The objective of this study was to determine and compare the moment-to-force (Mc/F) ratio and
the type of tooth movement generated in the anterior and posterior segments in orthodontic space closure with
stainless steel and titanium-molybdenum alloy loop archwires. Methods: Three-dimensional model of the
maxilla from which the first premolar was extracted, 18 3 25-mm slot stainless steel brackets, and 16 3 22-
mm stainless steel and b titanium-molybdenum alloy (TMA) closing loop archwires with anterior gable bend
of 15 and posterior gable bend of 25 were constructed. The archwires were engaged in the brackets, and
1-mm activations were carried out, which were repeated 5 times. The anterior and posterior segment Mc/F
ratio and the type of tooth movement generated by the 2 wires were compared. Results: It was found that
the Mc/F ratio for the anterior segment was approximately 5 mm, and for posterior teeth was approximately
10 mm for both stainless steel and TMA closing loop archwire. The anterior teeth exhibited controlled tipping,
whereas the posterior teeth showed bodily tooth movement, which was in accordance with the Mc/F ratio that
was obtained. Conclusions: The Mc/F ratio and the type of tooth movement exhibited by stainless steel and
TMA closing loop archwires were similar in both anterior and posterior segments. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2023;-:---)

A
n important part of orthodontic treatment is
space closure. Extraction space closure is carried
out by retracting anterior teeth and protracting
posterior teeth in different ways, depending on the type
of anchorage required. When closing extraction space,
generating a force to move the teeth and a root paralle-
ling movement to move the teeth bodily is necessary.
There are 2 major ways to do that with a fixed appliance:
sliding mechanics and closing loop mechanics. Each of
the methods has significant advantages and disadvan-
tages. The moment-to-force (Mc/F) ratio and tooth
a
Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Navi
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
b
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth
(Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
c
VSPM Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India.
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Po-
tential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.
Address correspondence to: Vaishali Mall, Department of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University)
Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra 411046, India; e-mail,
vaishalimall020894@gmail.com.
Submitted, June 2022; revised and accepted, June 2023.
0889-5406/$36.00
Ó 2023 by the American Association of Orthodontists. All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2023.06.010
movement type seen with sliding mechanics has been
studied by Hamanaka et al.1 We have tried to study
the same for loop mechanics in this article.2
Loops are commonly made in either stainless steel
(SS) or b titanium-molybdenum alloy (TMA) archwire.
Since introducing TMA, it has been largely preferred
over SS as its modulus of elasticity is 1.8 times lower
than that of SS, giving it twice the amount of spring
back as SS while maintaining its good formability. A
loop-bent TMA will have a lower load deflection
rate than a loop of the same configuration made of
SS.3,4 However, the torque expression with SS wire is
approximately 1.5-2.0 times the torque expression of
TMA.5
However, because of the difficulty of conducting nu-
merical analysis for the mechanical behavior of a looped
archwire, the tooth movement generated by activating
the closing loop made in stainless steel and TMA
and a comparison of the Mc/F ratio has not yet been
investigated.
This study aimed to investigate and compare the
Mc/F and the type of tooth movement generated by
activating closing loop archwires made of SS and TMA

1
2 Mall et al
in both anterior and posterior teeth using the finite
element method (FEM).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The analytical model was developed from the
computed tomography (CT) scan images with a voxel
size of 0.250 mm of a human skull taken with a
computed tomography scanner (Philips Ingenuity 128-
slice scanner, Amsterdam, Netherlands). The maxillary
model for retraction was made from CT scan images
described by Hamanaka et al,1 Sumi et al,6 and Kojima
and Fukui.7 The CT images of a maxillary dentition
were exported as digital imaging and communications
in medicine files to 3-dimensional (3D) image processing
and editing software (version 4.1.0; SlicerCMF, http://
www.slicer.org). The scans were converted into stereoli-
thography format files to create the computer-aided
design models using Slicer software. The conversion of
CT scan data to a solid model is like reverse engineering
(Fig 1). After reconstructing the digital imaging and
communications in medicine files to 3D surface data
(computer-aided design model), they were imported to
FEM preprocessing and postprocessing software (version
2017, Altair Hypermesh; Altair Engineering, Inc, Detroit,
Mich). The teeth were aligned to the ideal positions of
the normal dentition after remeshing, and the first pre-
molar extractions were done as the case model formax-
illary dental protrusion (Fig 2).
The materials are assumed to be homogeneous and
linear, and the elastic material properties (Young’s
modulus, Poisson’s Ratio) were taken from previous
studies (Table I).5-8 Contact nonlinearity was placed for
periodontal ligament (PDL). Nonlinearity means that
the stiffness matrix (K) changes with the solution; K is
a function of the nodal displacements; as K changes, a
new solution must be attained until the thus iterated
solution stops changing within tolerances. Contact
nonlinearity occurs when because of force on $1 parts
in contact (pushing or pulling on another), there is a
deformation leading to a change in the geometry of a
part (eg, a change in the shape of PDL during tooth
movement). This translates into a change in the
stiffness matrix or the forces (action and reaction)
between the parts in contact. This leads to another
iteration of the approaching solution to the problem.
This property of contact nonlinearity, or contact
boundary condition as it is sometimes called, has been
used in the studies by Hamanaka et al1 and Anh et al8
to simulate long-term tooth movements during space
closure, and the same has been used in this study. The
PDL was composed of wedge elements with a uniform
thickness of 0.2 mm.1,8
- 2023  Vol -  Issue - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
The fixed orthodontic appliance was composed of 18
3 25-mm slot brackets and 16 3 22-mm SS and TMA
archwires with a teardrop loop of 8 mm in length and
4 mm in maximum thickness, which was positioned
5 mm distal to the center of the canine. MBT 18 3
25-mm brackets were reverse-engineered and attached
to the teeth using the MBT bracket positioning chart
for the first premolar extraction. A 16 3 22-mm
teardrop-shaped closing loop archwire in TMA and
stainless steel were also constructed with an anterior
(a) gable bend of 15 and posterior (b) gable bend of
25 (Fig 3). These were constructed using solid modeler
software (Altair Engineering) and imported to the pre-
processing software (Altair Hypermesh). The archwire
and brackets were modeled using 8-node hexahedral el-
ements. All materials were set to be isotropic. With rigid
body elements, each bracket was attached to the corre-
sponding tooth (Fig 4).
Long-term orthodontic tooth movements were simu-
lated using a bone remodeling algorithm described in
detail by Hamanaka et al.1 Simply put, an orthodontic
force is given to the tooth in the first stage, whereas dis-
placements are constrained at the PDL’s outer surface. Af-
ter an initial tooth displacement, each node forming the
outer surface of the PDL is displaced to restore the thick-
ness of the PDL to its original 0.2 mm thickness in the
next step. After this step, a second orthodontic force is
applied to the tooth, displacements are retrained at the
PDL’s outer nodes, and the PDL geometry is updated.
Then, 2 steps are simulated, the initial displacement
and the bone remodeling, assuming that the initial
displacement is a predictor of long-term movement.1
The tooth movement during space closure was simu-
lated by activating the loop by 1 mm. The loading con-
dition, wherein the loop with gable bends is activated,
was simulated in the following steps.
A model was constructed representing the state of
neutral activation instead of engaging the bent archwire
with the closing loop combined with a gable bend into
the brackets and tubes. The forces and moments acting
on the ends of closing loops associated with the gable
bend were calculated using a structural analysis based
on the tangent stiffness method, in which large deflec-
tion can be handled. The tangent stiffness method de-
scribes the stiffness of a system in response to small
displacements imposed on its current configuration.
In the tangent stiffness method, first, the loop is con-
structed with the gable bends at each end of the loop.
After this, the loop is forcefully straightened as it will
be when inserted in the bracket slots, and the force
generated by the loop is then measured with the tangent
stiffness method.9
Mall et al 3

Fig 1. The computer-aided design model of the maxilla.

Table I. Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of teeth,

PDL, alveolar bone, brackets, SS archwire, and TMA
archwire used in the study
Variables Young’s modulus (N/mm2) Poisson’s ratio
Teeth 20,000 0.3
PDL 50 0.49
Alveolar bone 2000 0.3
Brackets 168,000 0.49
SS archwire 200,000 0.3
TMA archwire 66,000 0.3
PDL, periodontal ligament; SS, stainless steel; TMA, b titanium-
molybdenum alloy.

movement was simulated on the basis of a bone remod-

Fig 2. View of the complete model with 18 3 25-mm
brackets, 16 3 22-mm teardrop closing loop archwire,
teeth, PDL, and jaw. PDL, periodontal ligament.
The mechanical circumstances of loop activation
were then replicated in the following manner. As the
archwire was engaged into the brackets and then, the
loop was activated by 1 mm by pulling the archwire
distal to the second molar tube till the 2 legs of the
loop were separated by 1 mm, and space was closed after
the movements of the anterior and posterior teeth. At
this time, displacements were constrained at the outer
surface of the PDL, and consequently, long-term tooth
eling algorithm. von Mises stresses experienced by the
archwires during activation and deactivation are shown
in Figures 5-6.
Tooth movements of the anterior and posterior seg-
ments were represented as a combination of translation
and rotational displacement at the center of resistance
(Cres), and the Mc/F values were calculated to determine
the quality of tooth movement in each segment. The Mc/
F ratios were calculated around the Cres of anterior teeth
for the anterior segment and the Cres of posterior teeth
for the posterior segment. All analyses were performed
using Abaqus software (Dassault Systemes Simulia
Corp, Providence, RI).

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics - 2023  Vol -  Issue -

4 Mall et al
Fig 3. Teardrop loop with gable bends of 15 a- and 25
b-angulations.
The sign convention was adopted in this study for the
forces, moments, and signifying the movement of teeth.
This facilitated the interpretation of biomechanical re-
sults. In accordance with Hamanaka et al,1 the following
system of coordinates and convention governing signs
were applied with the positive direction to the left, pos-
terior, and up, respectively: (1) x-axis denotes movement
in buccopalatal direction (transverse plane), (2) y-axis
denotes movement in the anteroposterior direction
(sagittal plane), (3) z-axis denotes movement in
superior-inferior direction (vertical plane).
RESULTS
The MC expressed by the SS and TMA loops at each
tooth because of the gable bends placed is shown in
Table II. When Mc/F obtained from a structural analysis
based on the tangent stiffness method were applied to
3D FEM models, and 1-mm activations were carried
out, similar Mc/F ratios of the anterior and the posterior
segments were observed between the 2 models. Table III
shows the Mc/F ratios obtained from SS and TMA
closing loop archwires on 1-mm activations carried out
5 times.
As can be seen from Tables IV-VII, with stainless steel
closing loop archwire, the Cres of the anterior segment
moved 1.850 mm posteriorly and 3.090 mm inferiorly,
and the Cres of posterior teeth moved 0.2 mm
anteriorly and 0.41 mm inferiorly in relation to its
initial position after five 1-mm activations. With the
TMA closing loop archwire, the Cres of anterior teeth
moved 1.56 mm posteriorly and 2.87 mm inferiorly,
and the Cres of posterior teeth moved anteriorly by
0.23 mm and inferiorly by 0.42 mm.
Figures 7-10 show the superimposition of the initial
models with the models after five 1-mm activations.
- 2023  Vol -  Issue - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Fig 4. Image of the FEM with meshing details. FEM, finite
element method.
DISCUSSION
Orthodontic tooth movement has been largely pre-
dicted and planned through clinical experience. A reli-
able prediction of long-term tooth movement will
greatly improve the treatment results. Recent years
have seen increased demand for simulating tooth move-
ment under various loading conditions.1,6,7 Qualitative
determination of the biomechanical characteristics of
the loop is not possible clinically; therefore, mathemat-
ical approaches and numerical methods are usually used.
Clarifying the complexities of teeth’s responses to
forces and moments during anterior retraction is one
of the major challenges. For the current study, finite
element analysis was chosen because of the complexity
of the clinical design, the variability in dental differ-
ences, the multiplicity of elements that needed match-
ing, the individual response to applied force, and the
potential effect of other variables.
Long-term orthodontic tooth movement occurs
because of biomechanical and histologic changes in
the periodontal tissues produced by reiterating the initial
displacement and bone remodeling phases of mechani-
cal and biological processes. Although many studies
have been performed to predict orthodontic tooth
movement, most were limited to the analysis of initial
displacement, mainly produced from physical distortion
of the PDL, thus making the movement momentary and
reversible.9-11 To overcome this limitation, Hamanaka
et al1 developed a numerical simulation model to mimic
bone remodeling in long-term orthodontic tooth move-
ment by using contact boundary conditions for PDL in
the FEM. Structural analysis based on the tangent stiff-
ness method, in which large deflection can be handled,
Mall et al
Fig 5. von Mises stresses experienced by SS archwire in the study. SS, stainless steel.
was used to help calculate the Mc/F ratios at the anterior
and posterior segments with gable bend.
This study uses FEM to compare 16 3 22-mm SS and
TMA closing loop archwires using numerical simulation
on the basis of the bone remodeling algorithm described
by Hamanaka et al1 with realistic bracket slot, archwire,
and tooth dimensions.1
Loop mechanics has the potential to produce pre-
programmed moment Mc/F ratios for achieving the
desired type of tooth movement by incorporating gable
bends into closing loops. Some authors, such as Gjess-
ing,12 believed in gabling of the legs of the closing
loop archwire depending on the anchorage requirement,
whereas others, such as Halazonetis,13 advocated the
placement of a total of 40 gabling in both the legs of
the retraction loop. According to Faulkner et al,14 the
optimal preactivation bends largely depend on the wire
size, the modulus of elasticity, and the elastic limit of
the particular material.
The efficacy of any loop biomechanical variables,
such as force, moment, and Mc/F ratio, must be deter-
mined. The Mc/F ratio is obtained as a ratio between
MC given to negate the unwanted effect of MF and the
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
5
force. This ratio specifies the sort of tooth movement
possible, such as with a 7:1 Mc/F ratio-controlled
tipping movement, with 10:1 bodily movement, and
with 12:1, root movement will be seen.15
Different loop designs have been introduced, which
can be further modified with coils, bends, etc. However,
the teardrop loop most used clinically remains because
of its ease of fabrication and cleanability; thus, the tear-
drop closing loop archwire has been used in this study. A
balance is necessary between forces and moments pro-
duced as the closing loop archwire is activated.
Archwire properties determine how the teeth will
behave when the closing loop is activated, and a good
understanding of this behavior is thus essential to
achieve desired tooth movements. The 2 most used ma-
terials for loop fabrication are stainless steel and TMA
closing loop archwires. SS has high stiffness and great
deformation resistance, allowing it to be used as a clos-
ing loop archwire, as this property helps yield better axial
inclination control. However, because of the great resis-
tance to deformation that the wire has, it also has a great
load deflection rate that serves as a huge disadvantage as
the biomechanical forces that the closing loop made of
- 2023  Vol -  Issue -
6 Mall et al

Fig 6. von Mises stresses experienced by TMA archwire in the study. TMA, b titanium-molybdenum
alloy.

Table II. Moment of couple expressed by the wire after Table III. Mc/F ratios of the anterior and posterior
incorporating a- and b-bends segment of SS and TMA closing loop archwires
Moment of couple expressed by the wire (N-mm) Mc/F ratio details

Second First Second Lateral Central Anterior segment Posterior segment

Material molar molar premolar Canine incisor incisor
SS 9.28 15.422 18.437 35.848 0.547 17.128 Loop deactivation SS TMA SS TMA
TMA 3.241 4.789 6.084 11.701 0.083 7.093 First activation 5.235 5.129 10.075 10.034
Second activation 5.297 5.148 10.175 10.057
SS, stainless steel; TMA, b titanium-molybdenum alloy. Third activation 5.299 5.154 10.179 10.062
Fourth activation 5.266 5.154 10.201 10.102
Fifth activation 5.241 5.166 10.252 10.165
this wire provides are great, and it reduces its range of
activation.16-18 SS, stainless steel; TMA, b titanium-molybdenum alloy.
With the introduction of TMA archwires, some of the
disadvantages of the SS archwire were overcome. TMA
wire has low load deflection rates and expresses fewer expression of the counter moment or the moment of the
biomechanical forces than SS for the same amount of couple expressed by the wire by placing a and b bends in
deformation. This gives the wire an increased range of them.19-21
action. This wire also has increased formability, allowing The Mc/F ratio is affected by both the force exerted
for versatile loop designs and increased incorporation of by the wire and the moment of couple expressed by
wire in the loop, thereby reducing the force of activation the wire. Bodily movement or a higher Mc/F ratio can
even further. However, the flexural and tensional be achieved by reducing the force values or by increasing
Young’s modulus is half that of SS. This results in a lower the moment of the couple. With SS, although the

- 2023  Vol -  Issue - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Mall et al 7

Table IV. Sagittal movement (y-axis coordinates in mm) of the teeth before and after each 1-mm activation with SS
closing loop archwire
After first After second After third After fourth After fifth
Teeth Before activation activation activation activation activation
Second molar 12.93 12.96 12.99 13.02 13.05 13.08
First molar 22.00 22.18 22.36 22.55 22.73 22.92
Second premolar 30.50 30.56 30.62 30.68 30.75 30.81
Canine 42.38 41.99 41.69 41.328 41.02 40.47
Lateral incisors 46.96 46.61 46.25 45.89 45.53 45.18
Central incisors 49.83 49.446 49.06 48.682 48.298 47.91
Anterior segment 46.28 45.91 45.95 44.58 44.18 44.43
Posterior left segment 21.05 21.09 21.13 21.17 21.21 21.25
Posterior right 20.70 20.77 20.84 20.91 20.98 21.06
segment

Table V. Sagittal movement (y-axis coordinates in mm) of the teeth before and after each 1-mm activation with TMA
closing loop archwire
After first After second After third After fourth After fifth
Teeth Before activation activation activation activation activation
Second molar 12.93 12.89 12.85 12.822 12.78 12.75
First molar 22.00 21.96 21.93 21.89 21.82 21.78
Second premolar 30.50 30.43 30.38 30.31 30.24 30.19
Canine 42.38 41.99 41.61 41.23 40.85 40.47
Lateral incisors 46.96 46.66 46.37 46.08 45.78 45.49
Central incisors 49.83 49.51 49.18 48.85 48.53 48.21
Anterior segment 46.28 45.96 45.65 45.35 45.03 44.72
Posterior left segment 21.05 21.00 20.95 20.91 20.86 20.82
Posterior right 20.70 20.62 20.55 20.47 20.40 20.33
segment

Table VI. Vertical movement (z-axis coordinates in mm) of the teeth before and after each 1-mm activation with SS
closing loop archwire
After first After second After third After fourth After fifth
Teeth Before activation activation activation activation activation
Second molar 2.81 2.84 2.88 2.29 2.95 2.99
First molar 3.25 3.33 3.42 3.51 3.60 3.69
Second premolar 3.08 3.22 3.35 3.49 3.63 3.77
Canine 1.42 1.88 2.36 2.82 3.29 3.76
Lateral incisors 1.15 1.79 2.43 3.07 3.71 4.36
Central incisors 2.21 2.96 3.72 4.47 5.32 5.980
Anterior segment 1.66 2.29 2.92 3.55 4.18 4.75
Posterior left segment 3.07 3.15 3.23 3.31 3.39 3.48
Posterior right segment 2.46 2.74 3.04 3.34 3.64 3.95

expression of counter moments is high, the force exerted
by the wire is also very high. In contrast, with TMA, the
force expressed is low for the same amount of activation
as SS, but the counter moments expressed are also low
for the same amount of gable bends place. This can
affect the Mc/F ratios. Because these 2 materials are
most commonly used to fabricate closing loop archwires
in orthodontics, the Mc/F ratio they expressed and the
type of tooth movement they caused while closing the
extraction space was compared.
First, the tangent stiffness method was determined
using the counter moments expressed by the archwires.
As seen in Table I, the counter moments expressed by the
TMA archwire were significantly fewer than that with the
SS archwire. This was in accordance with the previous
studies. As seen in Table I, there is a gradual increase

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics - 2023  Vol -  Issue -

8 Mall et al

Table VII. Vertical movement (z-axis coordinates in mm) of the teeth before and after each 1-mm activation with
TMA closing loop archwire
After first After second After third After fourth After fifth
Teeth Before activation activation activation activation activation
Second molar 2.81 2.84 2.87 2.91 2.94 2.98
First molar 3.25 3.34 3.43 3.52 3.61 3.70
Second premolar 3.08 3.22 3.36 3.51 3.65 3.80
Canine 1.42 1.86 2.30 2.74 3.18 3.62
Lateral incisors 1.15 1.74 2.33 2.99 3.47 4.11
Central incisors 2.21 2.90 3.60 4.29 4.99 5.69
Anterior segment 1.66 2.23 2.80 3.28 3.95 4.53
Posterior left segment 3.07 3.15 3.23 3.31 3.39 3.49
Posterior right segment 2.46 2.74 3.02 3.30 3.58 3.86

Fig 7. Lateral view of the superimposition of the initial Fig 8. Frontal view of the superimposition of the initial
model with the model after activation of SS closing loop model with the model after activation of SS closing loop
archwire by 1 mm 5 times. SS, stainless steel. archwire by 1 mm 5 times. SS, stainless steel.

in the MC in the posterior segment, and in the anterior
segment, the lateral incisor shows a lower MC than
both the central incisors and the canine. This can be
attributed to the reciprocal moments expressed by the
canine and the central incisor.21
This archwire was inserted into the brackets, and 1-
mm activations were carried out in both models. This
was done in accordance with previous studies for stain-
less steel. Because the Mc/F ratio is directly related to the
amount of activation, for comparative purposes, the
amount of activation in both models was kept the
same. Activations of \1 mm were not tested to simulate
clinical scenarios in which the activation of \1 mm is
not feasible.
It was found that the Mc/F ratio for the anterior
segment was approximately 5 mm, and for posterior
teeth was approximately 10 mm for both SS and TMA
closing loop archwire. The anterior teeth were seen to
exhibit controlled tipping, whereas the posterior teeth
showed bodily tooth movement in accordance with the
Mc/F ratio that was obtained.
This is because even though the stainless steel had a
higher expression of counter moment, the force exerted
by activating the SS closing loop archwire was much
higher than TMA. With TMA, although the force exerted
was lower, the expression of the counter moment built in
the wire was also lower. As the MC/F ratio is dependent
on both the moment of couple and force, the wires,
because of their different disadvantages, led to similar
Mc/F ratios being expressed by them.
This is in accordance with previous studies.22-26 Rao
et al24 also found that on comparing 17 3 25-mm SS to
19 3 25-mm TMA, when no preactivation bends were
given, the Mc/F ratio expressed by the 2 wires was
similar, but when 10 of preactivation bend was given
in both the wires, TMA expressed a higher Mc/F ratio.
Chiang et al9 found that uncontrolled tipping is likely
to occur in en-masse retraction regardless of whether or
not a gable bend is incorporated in a teardrop loop arch-
wire. Their study indicated that Mc/F ratios generated by
gable bends are not effectively transmitted to the central
incisor when loops are placed distal to the canines, which

- 2023  Vol -  Issue - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

Mall et al
Fig 9. Lateral view of the superimposition of the initial
model with the model after activation of TMA closing
loop archwire by 1 mm 5 times. TMA, b titanium-molybde-
num alloy.
Fig 10. Frontal view of the superimposition of the initial
model with the model after activation of TMA closing
loop archwire by 1 mm 5 times. TMA, b titanium-molybde-
num alloy.
can be because the maxillary canine teeth with large
roots in the dentition might absorb a greater part of
the force systems generated by loops with gable bends.
Our results are in accordance with the results obtained
by Chiang et al.9
Hence, if the SS and TMA wires are used in equivalent
scenarios with the same wire dimensions, similar loop
designs, preactivation bends, and activation, they will
lead to similar types of tooth movement in the anterior
and posterior sections while closing the extraction space.
However, TMA wire is more formable than SS with a
lower load deflection rate, and therefore higher dimen-
sion wire with more versatile loop designs can be incor-
porated when using TMA for loop fabrication, and more
amounts of preactivation bends giving more moment of
the couple can also be built in the loop fabricated with
TMA. In addition, because TMA wires have a lower
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
9
load deflection rate, the activation can be increased
with TMA. It also allows for a margin of error while acti-
vating the closing loop archwire. Maia et al22 and Zhang
et al26 recommended using TMA over SS for its lower
magnitudes of forces. Therefore, TMA is more useful
when used with more gable bends and more complex
loop designs when compared with SS archwires when
used as closing loop archwires. Activation and deactiva-
tion of the closing loop on FEM model (see Videos 1 and
2, available at www.ajodo.org).
CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions can be drawn from this
study:
1. The Mc/F ratio exhibited by SS and TMA, closing
loop archwires, was similar in both anterior and pos-
terior segments.
2. The type of tooth movement exhibited by SS and
TMA archwires was also similar with controlled
tipping of the anterior segment and translation in
the posterior segment.
SUPPLEMENTARY DATA
Supplementary data associated with this article can
be found, in the online version, at https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ajodo.2023.06.010.
REFERENCES
1. Hamanaka R, Yamaoka S, Anh TN, Tominaga JY, Koga Y, Yoshida N.
Numeric simulation model for long-term orthodontic tooth move-
ment with contact boundary conditions using the finite element
method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017;152:601-12.
2. Burstone CJ. Rationale of the segmented arch. Am J Orthod 1962;
48:805-22.
3. Burstone CJ, Goldberg AJ. Beta titanium: a new orthodontic alloy.
Am J Orthod 1980;77:121-32.
4. Menghi C, Planert J, Melsen B. 3-D experimental identification of
force systems from orthodontic loops activated for first order cor-
rections. Angle Orthod 1999;69:49-57.
5. Archambault A, Major TW, Carey JP, Heo G, Badawi H, Major PW.
A comparison of torque expression between stainless steel, tita-
nium molybdenum alloy, and copper nickel titanium wires in
metallic self-ligating brackets. Angle Orthod 2010;80:884-9.
6. Sumi M, Koga Y, Tominaga JY, Hamanaka R, Ozaki H, Chiang PC,
et al. Innovative design of closing loops producing an optimal
force system applicable in the 0.022-in bracket slot system. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:968-78.
7. Kojima Y, Fukui H. Numeric simulations of en-masse space closure
with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;
138:702.e1-6: discussion 702.
8. Anh TN, Hamanaka R, Jinnai S, Komaki H, Yamaoka S,
Tominaga JY, et al. Simulation of orthodontic tooth movement
during activation of an innovative design of closing loop using
the finite element method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2021;160:240-9.
- 2023  Vol -  Issue -
10
9. Chiang PC, Koga Y, Tominaga JY, Ozaki H, Hamanaka R, Sumi M,
et al. Effect of gable bend incorporated into loop mechanics on
anterior tooth movement: comparative study between en masse
retraction and two-step retraction. Orthod Waves 2015;74:55-61.
10. Kanjanaouthai A, Mahatumarat K, Techalertpaisarn P, Versluis A. Ef-
fect of the inclination of a maxillary central incisor on periodontal
stress: finite element analysis. Angle Orthod 2012;82:812-9.
11. Tominaga JY, Ozaki H, Chiang PC, Sumi M, Tanaka M, Koga Y,
et al. Effect of bracket slot and archwire dimensions on anterior
tooth movement during space closure in sliding mechanics: a 3-
dimensional finite element study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2014;146:166-74.
12. Gjessing P. Biomechanical design and clinical evaluation of a new
canine-retraction spring. Am J Orthod 1985;87:353-62.
13. Halazonetis DJ. Understanding orthodontic loop preactivation.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:237-41.
14. Faulkner MG, Fuchshuber P, Haberstock D, Mioduchowski A. A
parametric study of the force/moment systems produced by T-
loop retraction springs. J Biomech 1989;22:637-47.
15. Kuhlberg AJ, Priebe DN. Space closure and anchorage control.
Semin Orthod 2001;7:42-9.
16. Orabi MF, Al-Sabbagh R, Elhadidy MH. Comparison of stainless steel
and TMA archwires for en masse retraction in lingual orthodontics:
a 3D finite element study. Int J Applied Dent Sci 2020;6:253-8.
17. Asgharnia MK, Brantley WA. Comparison of bending and tension
tests for orthodontic wires. Am J Orthod 1986;89:228-36.
18. Kusy RP. A review of contemporary archwires: their properties and
characteristics. Angle Orthod 1997;67:197-207.
- 2023  Vol -  Issue - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Mall et al
19. Bisol GK, Rocha R. Laboratorial study of the cuspid’s retraction
timing and tipping effects during space closure, using the
segmented arch technique. Dental Press J Orthod 2010;15:
53-64.
20. Brantley WA, Theodore E, editors. Orthodontic Materials: Scientific
and Clinical Aspects. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001. p. 219-43.
21. Isaacson RJ, Lindauer SJ, Rubenstein LK. Moments with the edge-
wise appliance: incisor torque control. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1993;103:428-38.
22. Maia LGM, de Moraes Maia ML, da Costa Monini A, Vianna AP,
Gandini LG. Photoelastic analysis of forces generated by T-loop
springs made with stainless steel or titanium-molybdenum alloy.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:e123-8.
23. Thiesen G, Shimizu RH, do Valle CV, do Valle-Corotti KM,
Pereira JR, Conti PC. Determination of the force systems produced
by different configurations of tear drop orthodontic loops. Dental
Press J Orthod 2013;18:19.e1-18.
24. Rao PR, Shrivastav SS, Joshi RA. Evaluation and Comparison of
Biomechanical Properties of Snail Loop with that of opus loop
and teardrop loop for en masse retraction of anterior teeth: FEM
Study. J Indian Orthod Soc 2013;47:62-7.
25. de Castro SM, Moreira R, Braga AC, Ferreira AP, Pollmann MC. Ef-
fect of activation and preactivation on the mechanical behavior
and neutral position of stainless steel and beta-titanium T-loops.
Korean J Orthod 2015;45:198-208.
26. Liu J, Zhang D, Xu L, Cai S, Guo J, Chen J, et al. Mechanical force
system of double key loop with finite element analysis. BMC Oral
Health 2021;21:301.