ONLINE ONLY

Numeric simulations of en-masse space closure

with sliding mechanics
Yukio Kojimaa and Hisao Fukuib
Nagoya, Japan

Introduction: En-masse sliding mechanics have been typically used for space closure. Because of friction
created at the bracket-wire interface, the force system during tooth movement has not been clarified.
Methods: Long-term tooth movements in en-masse sliding mechanics were simulated with the finite
element method. Results: Tipping of the anterior teeth occurred immediately after application of retraction
forces. The force system then changed so that the teeth moved almost bodily, and friction occurred at the
bracket-wire interface. Net force transferred to the anterior teeth was approximately one fourth of the
applied force. The amount of the mesial force acting on the posterior teeth was the same as that acting on
the anterior teeth. Irrespective of the amount of friction, the ratio of movement distances between the
posterior and anterior teeth was almost the same. By increasing the applied force or decreasing the
frictional coefficient, the teeth moved rapidly, but the tipping angle of the anterior teeth increased because
of the elastic deflection of the archwire. Conclusions: Finite element simulation clarified the tooth movement
and the force system in en-masse sliding mechanics. Long-term tooth movement could not be predicted from
the initial force system. The friction was not detrimental to the anchorage. Increasing the applied force or
decreasing the friction for rapid tooth movement might result in tipping of the teeth. (Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2010;138:702.e1-702.e6)

T
wo methods have been used for extraction space
closure. The first is 2-step retraction, which
involves canine retraction followed by incisor
retraction.1,2 The second method is en-masse retraction
of the 6 anterior teeth.3,4 Recently, Heo et al5 compared
the anchorage losses of the posterior teeth between the 2
methods and showed that en-masse space closure was
not detrimental to the anchorage in comparison with
2-step retraction. Huang et al6 also reported that no sig-
nificant difference in root resorption was seen between
2-step and en-masse space closure procedures. Since
en-masse space closure can reduce treatment duration,
it might be considered an advantage over the 2-step
retraction method.
En-masse movement has 2 types of mechanics. The
first is segmental mechanics, in which the anterior teeth
are retracted directly with a spring such as a T-loop
space closure spring.2 In this method, a complicated de-
sign of the spring is necessary to achieve bodily tooth
a
Associate professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Nagoya Institute
of Technology, Nagoya, Japan.
b
Professor, Department of Dental Materials Science, School of Dentistry,
Aichi-Gakuin University, Nagoya, Japan.
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the
products or companies described in this article.
Reprint requests to: Yukio Kojima, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
‘‘Shikumi’’ College, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Gokiso-cho, Showa-ku,
Nagoya, 466-8555, Japan; e-mail, kojima.yukio@nitech.ac.jp.
Submitted, March 2010; revised and accepted, June 2010.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright Ó 2010 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.015
movement.1,2 The second type is sliding mechanics, in
which the anterior teeth move together with an
archwire guided by the brackets placed on the
posterior teeth. This method can easily achieve bodily
tooth movement.3,4
In sliding mechanics, friction occurs at the wire-
bracket interface.7 Many measurements of the friction
force have been carried out for various combinations
of wires and brackets.8-10 The friction dissipates some
of the applied force and decreases the speed of the
tooth movement. It is difficult to know whether the
magnitude of the applied force is sufficient to allow
tooth movement. Application of high magnitude force,
in an attempt to overcome the friction, might increase
the movement of the anchor teeth, and the belief has
been that friction is detrimental to anchorage.11
In 2-step retraction, which involves canine retrac-
tion with sliding mechanics, mechanical simulation by
using a finite element method has been carried out,
and the forces transferred to the teeth have been esti-
mated.12,13 The results showed that friction had no
effect on the movement ratio of the canine and anchor
teeth. The friction acted not only on the canine but
also on the anchor teeth. The latter friction prevented
the anchor teeth from moving. The friction was not
detrimental to the anchorage. This finding was also
reported by Southard et al.14
However, few studies have been carried out on
en-masse retraction with sliding mechanics. The force
system and the tooth movements have not been fully
702.e1
702.e2 Kojima and Fukui
Fig 1. Finite element model for en-masse sliding mechanics.
clarified. Recently, Tominaga et al15 calculated the
initial tooth movement in en-masse sliding mechanics
using a precise finite element model and clarified the
types of tooth movement immediately after force appli-
cation. However, the force acting on the teeth can vary
during orthodontic tooth movement.12,13 Therefore, in
this study, we calculated the long-term tooth move-
ments in en-masse sliding mechanics. For this purpose,
the simulation method proposed in a previous article
was used, and the force system and the tooth movements
were illustrated.16 These results will be helpful to under-
stand the mechanism of en-masse sliding mechanics.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We used the sliding mechanics described by
McLaughlin and Bennett3,4 and made a finite element
model as shown in Figure 1. Assuming symmetry for
both sides of the arch, a model of only the left side was
fabricated. The archwire was made from a stainless steel
wire of 0.019 3 0.025 in (Young’s modulus, 200 GPa)
and divided into 3-dimensional elastic-beam elements.
The mechanical response of a tooth supported by the
periodontal ligament (PDL) is replaced by the tooth
element. It represents the 3-dimensional movement
produced by elastic deformation of the PDL when forces
and moments act on a tooth. The calculation method of
the tooth element was explained in detail in the previous
article.16 In this method, the tooth and the alveolar bone
are assumed to be rigid bodies, whereas the PDL is a lin-
ear elastic film (Young’s modulus, 0.2 MPa; Poisson’s
ratio, 0.47) with a uniform thickness of 0.2 mm. To
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
December 2010
calculate the tooth elements, the surface models of the
tooth are necessary. They were made based on a dental
study model (i21D-400C, Nissin Dental Products,
Kyoto, Japan).
Nodes of the anterior tooth elements are connected
directly to the archwire nodes to prevent them from slid-
ing on each other. Alternatively, nodes of the posterior
tooth elements are connected to the archwire nodes
with spring elements, which allow the teeth to slide
closely along the archwire. The clearance between
wire and bracket slot is disregarded in this model.
Retraction forces of Po 51 N are applied to the canine
and the premolar brackets. The premolar and the molars
are connected with link elements, by which the force
applied to the premolar is delivered to the molars.
Kinetic friction is produced when the archwire
slides through the bracket slots of the premolar and mo-
lars. Friction forces in the mesial direction act on the
archwire, and those in the distal direction act on the
brackets. The friction forces at the premolar and molars
are denoted as Fr1, Fr2, and Fr3. Absolute values of net
forces acting on the anterior and posterior teeth are the
same, and they are obtained by subtracting the total fric-
tion force Fr 5 (Fr1 1 Fr2 1 Fr3) from the retracting
force Po, P 5 (Po – Fr). The calculation method of
the friction force was explained in a previous article.12
The bracket width is assumed to be 3 mm, and the
frictional coefficient is assumed to be m 5 0.2 based
on the experimental data.8,9
In the first step, forces and moments acting on the
teeth are calculated by using the finite element model
(Fig 1). In the second step, for each tooth, the amount
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Kojima and Fukui 702.e3
Volume 138, Number 6

Fig 2. A, Immediately after force application, friction was not produced. Tipping of the anterior teeth
occurred, the root apex moved mesially, and the crown moved distally. B, After a long time, the an-
terior teeth moved bodily. Friction occurred and dissipated the applied force. Net forces transferred
to the anterior and posterior teeth became approximately one fourth of the applied force.

of orthodontic tooth movement is calculated based on
the stress induced in the PDL. Then the tooth is
displaced by this amount. By repeating this procedure,
the teeth move step by step. The force system acting
on the teeth is updated with the tooth movement. The
detailed calculation method was explained in previous
articles.12,13,16 In this method, orthodontic tooth
movement is produced by resorption and apposition of
the alveolar bone (bone remodeling). The bone
remodeling rate is assumed to be in proportion to the
mean stress, sm, in the PDL. Denoting the amount of
bone resorption (and apposition) (mm) per unit of time
(day) and unit of stress (kPa) by a coefficient, C, (mm/
[day$kPa]), tooth movement depends on the parameter
CT, where T is the elapsed time.16 Because C is an un-
known value at the present time, the progress of tooth
movement is indicated by the parameter CT.
RESULTS
Immediately after the application of forces of Po 5
1 N to the brackets of the canine and the second premolar,
the movement of the teeth is illustrated in Figure 2, A.
The initial tooth positions are illustrated with hidden
red lines. To indicate the difference in tooth positions
before and after the movements, the actual displace-
ments of the teeth were magnified 300 times. At this
time, friction forces were not produced, so that the
702.e4 Kojima and Fukui
Fig 3. When retraction forces increased to 5 N, the teeth could move faster, and the tipping angle of
the anterior teeth increased to 8.5 because of the elastic deflection of the archwire.
retraction forces acted directly on the anterior and
posterior teeth. Distributions of mean stress in the
PDL are indicated by color contours. The maximum
and minimum stresses, smax and smin, are indicated in
the figure. When the canine bracket moved distally by
4.0 mm, the premolar bracket moved mesially by 1.9
mm (Fig 2, B). The tipping angle of the central incisor
was only 0.2 ; thus, the anterior teeth moved bodily.
The friction forces produced at each bracket were
0.22, 0.33, and 0.21 N. Since total frictional force be-
came 0.76 N, net forces acting on the anterior and pos-
terior teeth were 0.24 N.
When the force Po increased to 5 N, the tipping
angle of the incisor increased to 8.5 because of deflec-
tion of the archwire (Fig 3). When there was no friction
at the bracket-wire interface, the tipping angle of the
incisor was 5.9 (Fig 4).
DISCUSSION
From the simulation results, it was found how the
teeth moved in en-masse sliding mechanics. Also, the
force system during tooth movement was clarified. Im-
mediately after application of forces, friction was not
produced, so that all the force worked to move the teeth.
Tipping of the anterior teeth occurred in the sagittal
plane. That is, the crowns moved distally, and the root
apex moved mesially (Fig 2, A). Locations of the center
of rotation, at which tensile stress changed to
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
December 2010
compressive stress in the PDL, were not the same for
the incisors and the canine. Although these teeth were
connected to the archwire, they seemed to move individ-
ually. This result is not novel because the same move-
ment pattern of the anterior teeth was previously
calculated by Tominaga et al.15 This also agrees with
that calculated by Reimann et al,17 in which individual
incisors moved independently in an anterior tooth seg-
ment blocked with a wire. When the teeth moved farther
and deformation of the archwire increased, a moment
for preventing tipping acted on all teeth. When the mo-
ment increased to a certain level, the movement pattern
of the teeth changed from tipping to bodily movement.
The teeth tipped in the initial short period, but they
moved bodily over a long period (Fig 2, B). This result
was calculated first by the simulation method in this
study and was reasonable from a mechanical point of
view. The bodily movement that occurred in Figure 2, B,
was different from the initial tipping movement
(Fig 2, A). In general, it is difficult to predict the long-
term tooth movement from only the initial force system.
For this reason, simulations of long-term tooth move-
ment are necessary, and the calculation method in this
article is important for this purpose.
Friction was produced during bodily tooth move-
ment. The total amount of the friction force became
0.76 N, so that the net force acting on the anterior and
posterior teeth became 0.24 N. Only 24% of the applied
force was transferred to the anterior teeth. This transfer
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Kojima and Fukui 702.e5
Volume 138, Number 6

Fig 4. In case of no friction, the applied forces acted directly on the teeth. The teeth could move
faster, but the tipping angle of the anterior teeth increased because of the elastic deflection of the
archwire. The ratio of movement distances between the posterior and anterior teeth was approxi-
mately the same as that for friction (Fig 2, B). The friction was not detrimental to the anchorage.

ratio was approximately the same as that for a single
canine retraction.12,13 Absolute values of stress acting
on the teeth during the bodily movement were
approximately 1 kPa (Fig 2, B), whereas, in the initial
short period, it was approximately 10 times greater
(Fig 2, A). This might be a cause of the pain experienced
in the initial period of orthodontic treatment.
When the retraction forces increased to 5 N, the
force acting on the archwire increased; this in turn
increased the archwire deflection. Thereby, the tipping
angle of the incisor increased to 8.5 (Fig 3). In this
simulation, we assumed that the tooth movement rate in-
creased with an absolute value of the stress in the PDL
that was in proportion to the retraction force.
Providing the validity of this assumption, the increase
in the retraction force shortens the treatment period re-
quired for space closure. However, the simulation results
suggested that too heavy retraction forces increase the
tipping angle of the teeth. This finding was noted by
Bennett and McLaughlin.4 Also, the excessive stress in
the PDL might impede tooth movement.
When friction between bracket and archwire was re-
duced to zero (m 5 0), the retraction force acted directly
on both the anterior and posterior teeth. The deflection
of the archwire increased. Thereby, the tipping angle
of the incisor increased to 5.9 (Fig 4). The distance
of movement of the posterior teeth in the frictionless
case was almost the same as that in the friction case
(Fig 2, B). The friction did not increase the movement
of the posterior teeth. Irrespective of the amount of
friction, the magnitude of net force acting on the ante-
rior teeth is the same as that acting on the posterior teeth.
This is a fundamental law of mechanics. The friction
was not detrimental to the anchorage, and this has
been clarified for a single canine retraction.12,13 From
a mechanical perspective, the decrease in friction was
equivalent to the increase in retraction force.
Numeric simulation can provide a helpful and
adjunctive examination of orthodontic treatment
mechanics when the underlying assumptions of tissue
properties are properly modeled. However, tissue prop-
erties in relation to orthodontic tooth movement have
not been fully clarified. In addition, the relationship be-
tween force magnitude and tooth-movement rate has not
been established.18,19 Therefore, we adopted the
simplest assumptions in the calculation method. These
assumptions might be insufficient to simulate tooth
movements in clinical situations. Cortical bone in the
maxilla can impede orthodontic tooth movement.
Also, a nonlinear property or the fiber structure of the
PDL might influence tooth movement.20-22 However,
these phenomena have not been fully clarified, and
experimental data are required for this calculation.
Including uncertain factors in the calculation would
complicate the method and the results. Hence, such
effects were omitted in this calculation. In the future,
the calculated results should be compared with
clinical experiences to verify the assumptions used in
this calculation. We hope that the calculated results
will be discussed from a clinical perspective.
702.e6 Kojima and Fukui
CONCLUSIONS
Finite element simulations clarified the tooth move-
ment and the force system in en-masse sliding mechan-
ics. Although tipping of the anterior teeth occurred with
the initial force system, they moved bodily after a long
time elapsed. Therefore, long-term tooth movement
could not be predicted from the initial force system.
During the bodily movement, friction occurred at the
bracket-wire interface and dissipated the applied force.
As a result, net force transferred to the anterior teeth be-
came approximately one fourth of the applied force. The
amount of the mesial force acting on the posterior teeth
was the same as that acting on the anterior teeth. There-
fore, irrespective of the amount of friction, the ratio of
movement distance of the posterior teeth to that of the
anterior teeth became almost the same. It was demon-
strated that friction was not detrimental to anchorage.
With increasing applied force, the tipping angle of the
anterior teeth increased from the elastic deflection of
the archwire.
REFERENCES
1. Burstone CJ. The segmented arch approach to space closure. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1982;82:361-78.
2. Nanda R, Kuhlberg A. Biomechanical basis of extraction space
closure. In: Nand R, editor. Biomechanics in clinical orthodontics.
Philadelphia Saunders; 1997. p. 156-87.
3. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. The transition from standard edgewise
to preadjusted appliance system. J Clin Orthod 1989;23:142-53.
4. Bennett JC, McLaughlin RP. Controlled space closure with a pre-
adjusted appliance system. J Clin Orthod 1990;24:251-60.
5. Heo W, Nahm DS, Baek SH. En masse retraction and two-step re-
traction of maxillary anterior teeth in adult Class I women. A com-
parison of anchorage loss. Angle Orthod 2007;77:973-8.
6. Huang Y, Wang XX, Zhang J, Liu C. Root shortening in patients
treated with two-step and en masse space closure procedures with
sliding mechanics. Angle Orthod 2010;80:492-7.
7. Nanda R, Ghosh J. Biomechanical considerations in sliding
mechanics. In: Nanda R, editor. Biomechanics in clinical ortho-
dontics. Philadelphia: Saunders 1997:188-217.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
December 2010
8. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Prewitt MJ. Comparison of the frictional
coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations in
the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod 1991;61:293-302.
9. Noda T, Okamoto Y, Hamanaka H. Friction property of orthodon-
tic wires: evaluation by static frictional coefficients. J Jpn Orthod
Soc 1993;52:154-60.
10. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional resis-
tances between orthodontic bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod
1980;78:593-609.
11. Proffit WR. Contemporary orthodontics. St Louis: Mosby; 1986.
12. Kojima Y, Fukui H. A numerical simulation of canine retraction
by sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;
127:542-51.
13. Kojima Y, Fukui H, Miyajima K. The effect of friction and
flexural rigidity of the archwire on canine movement in sliding
mechanics: a numerical simulation with a 3-dimensional finite
element method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:
275.e1-10.
14. Southard TE, Marshall SD, Grosland NM. Friction does not in-
crease anchorage loading. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2007;131:412-4.
15. Tominaga J, Tanaka M, Koga Y, Gonzales C, Kobayashi M,
Yoshida N. Optimal loading conditions for controlled movement
of anterior teeth in sliding mechanics. Angle Orthod 2009;79:
1102-7.
16. Kojima Y, Mizuno Y, Fukui H. A numerical simulation of tooth
movement produced by molar uprighting spring. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:630-8.
17. Reimann S, Keilig L, Jager A, Bourauel C. Biomechanical finite-
element investigation of the position of the center of resistance of
the upper incisors. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:219-24.
18. Quinn RS, Yoshikawa DK. A reassessment of force magnitude in
orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1985;88:252-60.
19. Ren Y, Maltha JC, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Optimum force magni-
tude for orthodontic tooth movement: a systematic literature
review. Angle Orthod 2003;73:86-92.
20. Toms SR, Eberhardt AW. A nonlinear finite element analysis of
the periodontal ligament under orthodontic tooth loading. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:657-65.
21. Provatidis CG. A comparative FEM-study of tooth mobility
using isotropic and anisotropic models of the periodontal lig-
ament. Finite element method. Med Eng Phys 2000;22:
359-70.
22. Qian H, Chen J, Katona TR. The influence of PDL principal fibers
in a 3-dimensional analysis of orthodontic tooth movement. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:272-9.