SHORT COMMUNICATION

Friction does not increase anchorage loading

Thomas E. Southard,a Steve D. Marshall,b and Nicole M. Groslandc
Iowa City, Iowa

Conventional wisdom suggests that orthodontists must apply added force to overcome friction during canine
retraction (sliding mechanics), the result of which can be increased anchorage loading and anchorage loss.
However, for a frictional force to be exerted mesially by the archwire against a canine during retraction, the
archwire must be compressed between the canine and the anchor molar, and an equal but opposite force
must be applied distally against the molar by the archwire. In other words, the frictional force that reduces
the force of retraction on the canine must also reduce the protraction force on the molar. Emphasis on
employing reduced-friction (eg, self-ligating) brackets during sliding mechanics to prevent added posterior
anchorage loading is unwarranted and based more on bracket salesmanship than on orthodontic
biomechanics. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:412-4)

A
commonly used orthodontic technique to close
interdental spaces is termed “sliding mechan-
ics,” in which the bracketed tooth, in effect,
slide along an archwire. In orthodontic cases including
maxillary first premolar extractions, a distally directed
force is typically applied against the maxillary canines
to move them distally along the archwire, and a
reciprocal, mesially directed force, is applied against
the posterior anchor teeth.
During sliding mechanics, a frictional resistance re-
sults between the bracket and the archwire. This frictional
force acts in a direction tangential to the plane of
contact between the bracket and the archwire, opposes
the sliding motion of the tooth along the archwire, and
is proportional to the normal force transmitted across
the plane of contact.1
Many articles in the orthodontic literature have
dealt with friction and explored various factors that can
affect frictional resistance during sliding mechanics.
These factors include bracket slot width, bracket com-
position, wire size, wire shape, wire composition,
wire-to-slot ligation method, bracket/wire surface con-
ditions, interbracket distance, saliva, and relative inter-
face motion between bracket and archwire.2-9
Recently, increasing emphasis has been placed on
the design of brackets to decrease friction. Redlich et
al10 evaluated the static friction force created between
From the University of Iowa, Iowa City.
a
Professor and head, Department of Orthodontics.
b
Adjunct associate professor, Department of Orthodontics.
c
Assistant professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering.
Reprint requests to: Thomas E. Southard, Department of Orthodontics, College
of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52246; e-mail, tom-
southard@uiowa.edu.
Submitted, June 2006; revised and accepted, September 2006.
0889-5406/$32.00
Copyright © 2007 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.037
412
archwires and reduced-friction brackets during sliding
mechanics. They demonstrated significant differences
among the groups of brackets tested and concluded that
not all brackets provided reduced friction, even though
the manufacturers describe them as doing so. Cacciaf-
esta et al11 measured the frictional resistance generated
between stainless steel self-ligating brackets, polycar-
bonate self-ligating brackets, and conventional stainless
steel brackets using 3 orthodontic wire alloys. They
reported that stainless steel self-ligating brackets gen-
erated significantly lower frictional forces and beta-
titanium archwires had higher frictional resistances
than stainless steel or nickel-titanium archwires. Tecco
et al12 reported similar findings.
Why are orthodontists concerned with friction
during sliding mechanics? Conventional wisdom states
that an orthodontist must apply added force to
overcome friction, the result of which can be in-
creased anchorage loading and subsequent anchorage
loss (Fig 1).7,9,13,14 In other words, for maxillary canine
distal retraction through a first premolar extraction
space, not only must a reciprocal force be applied
between the canine and the anchor molar, but also an
additional load must be applied by the anchor molar to
overcome archwire friction as the canine moves dis-
tally. This additional load against the anchor molar can
increase anchorage loss.
This concept has motivated our specialty to seek
techniques to reduce friction and, consequently, reduce
the potential for increased anchorage loss.9 But is it
true? Does archwire/bracket friction increase anchorage
loading during sliding mechanics?
Let us explore this concept carefully. First, examine
a frictionless orthodontic system shown in Figure 2.
Here, a 100-g elastic force is being applied between the
canine and the molar brackets. The force is equal, but
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 131, Number 3
Fig 1. To retract a canine by sliding it along an archwire
(in this case with 100-g distal force), conventional
wisdom dictates that additional force, beyond what is
required to move the tooth, is necessary to overcome
friction (in this case also assumed to be 100 g). Some
authors suggest that additional frictional force in-
creases loading on anchor molar to value equal to
canine retraction force plus frictional force (in this case
to 200 g) and, consequently, increases molar anchorage
loss.7,9,13,14
Fig 2. In a frictionless orthodontic system, in which
equal-but-opposite 100-g elastic force is applied be-
tween canine and molar brackets, entire 100-g elastic
force is transmitted directly to roots of both teeth.
Furthermore, teeth can slide freely along the archwire,
and the archwire is not compressed.
opposite, at the canine and the molar. Because there is
no friction, the entire 100-g force being applied to the
bracket of both teeth is transmitted directly to the roots
of the teeth.
In an orthodontic system with friction (Fig 3), the
molar and the canine are still free to translate along the
archwire, but part of the 100-g retraction force applied
against the canine is reduced by the frictional force; less
force is available for retracting the canine root. If one
assumes a frictional force of 20 g, then the retraction force
applied to the canine root is reduced from 100 to 80 g.
Now, for this 20-g frictional force to be applied
Southard, Marshall, and Grosland 413
Fig 3. In this simplified diagram illustrating an orth-
odontic system with friction (frictional force between
canine bracket and archwire assumed to be 20 g), the
archwire between canine and molar is under compres-
sion; ie, for 20-g frictional force to be applied by the
archwire against canine, equal but opposite force must
be applied distally against the molar by compressed
archwire. Frictional force that reduces force of retrac-
tion on the canine root to 80 g must also reduce force of
protraction on the molar root to 80 g.
mesially against the canine, there must be an equal, but
opposite, 20-g force applied distally against the molar.
Explained from a different perspective, for the archwire to
exert a 20-g mesial force against the canine, the archwire
must be under compression between the canine and the
molar, and the compressed archwire must push distally
an equal amount against the molar. Simply put, if a
frictional force opposes the distal slide of the canine, it
will reduce the force applied to the roots of both the
canine and the molar by an equal amount (in this case
by 20 g).
Next, assume that the orthodontist is not content
with having 80 g of retraction force applied against the
canine root. So he or she increases the elastic force
applied at the bracket of the canine and the molar from
100 to 120 g (Fig 4). In this case, assuming that the
frictional force remains at 20 g, the retraction force
applied against the root of the canine (and the protrac-
tion force applied against the root of the molar)
increases back to the 100-g force initially found in the
frictionless orthodontic system (Fig 1).
Finite element analysis confirmed these conclu-
sions. A simplified 3-dimensional model was devel-
oped with an archwire sliding freely between brackets
on a canine and a molar. A 100-g load was applied
between the teeth. With wire/bracket friction values of
0 to 0.5, the resulting forces acting against the canine
and the molar roots were found to be equal.
414 Southard, Marshall, and Grosland
Fig 4. Increasing the elastic force applied against the
brackets of a canine and a molar to overcome friction
and restore retraction force against root of a canine to
100 g concomitantly increases protraction force against
molar anchor to 100 g. In other words, increasing
interbracket elastic force to 120 g to overcome frictional
force of 20 g essentially returns force system against
roots back to original frictionless system.
What does this mean for the practicing orthodon-
tist? Emphasis on using reduced-friction (eg, self-
ligating) brackets during sliding mechanics to help
preserve posterior anchorage is unwarranted and based
more on bracket salesmanship than on orthodontic
biomechanics.
Was conventional wisdom true? Does friction be-
tween brackets and archwires result in increased an-
chorage loading during sliding mechanics? No. If the
teeth are free to slide along the archwire, friction
between brackets and archwires does not increase
anchorage loading.
REFERENCES
1. Shames I. Engineering mechanics. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1966.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
March 2007
2. Frank C, Nikolai R. A comparative study of frictional resistances
between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod 1980;78:
593-609.
3. Kusy R, Whitley J, Mayhew M, Buckthal J. Surface roughness of
orthodontic arch wire via laser spectroscopy. Angle Orthod
1988;58:33-45.
4. Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional forces
between brackets and arch wire. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1989;96:397-404.
5. Kapila S, Angolkar P, Duncanson M, Nanda R. Evaluation of
friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and orthodon-
tic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1990;98:117-26.
6. Yamaguchi K, Nanda R, Morimoto N, Yoshihito O. A study of
force application, amount of retarding force, and bracket width in
sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1996;109:
50-6.
7. Braun S, Bluestein M, Moore K, Benson G. Friction in perspec-
tive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:619-27.
8. Loftus B, Årtun J, Nichollis J, Alonzo T, Stoner J. Evaluation of
friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch
wire combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:
336-45.
9. Taylor N, Ison K. Frictional resistance between orthodontic
brackets and archwires in the buccal segments. Angle Orthod
1996;66:215-21.
10. Redlich M, Mayer Y, Harari D, Lewinstein I. In vitro study of
frictional forces during sliding mechanics of “reduced-friction”
brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:69-73.
11. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini F, Ricciardi A, Scribante A, Klersy
C, Auricchio F. Evaluation of friction of stainless steel and
esthetic self-ligating brackets in various bracket-archwire
combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:
395-402.
12. Tecco S, Festa F, Caputi S, Traini T, Di Iorio D, D’Attilio M.
Friction of conventional and self-ligating brackets using a 10
bracket model. Angle Orthod 2005;75:1041-5.
13. Articolo L, Kusy R. Influence of angulation on the resistance of
sliding in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1999;115:39-51.
14. Proffit W, Fields H, Ackerman J, Bailey L, Tulloch J. Biome-
chanics and mechanics. In: Contemporary orthodontics. 3rd ed.
St Louis: Mosby; 2000. p. 346-7.