ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effect of bracket slot and archwire dimensions

on anterior tooth movement during space closure
in sliding mechanics: A 3-dimensional finite
element study
Jun-ya Tominaga,a Hiroya Ozaki,b Pao-Chang Chiang,b Mayumi Sumi,b Motohiro Tanaka,c Yoshiyuki Koga,d
Christoph Bourauel,e and Noriaki Yoshidaf
Nagasaki, Japan, and Bonn, Germany

Introduction: It has been found that controlled movement of the anterior teeth can be obtained by attaching a
certain length of power arm onto an archwire in sliding mechanics. However, the impact of the archwire/bracket
play on anterior tooth movement has not been clarified. The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of
the power arm on anterior tooth movements with different dimensions of bracket slots and archwires. Methods:
A 3-dimensional finite element method was used to simulate en-masse anterior tooth retraction in sliding
mechanics. Displacements of the maxillary central incisor and the archwire deformation were calculated
when applying retraction forces from different lengths of power arms. Results: When a 0.017 3 0.022-in
archwire was engaged into the 0.018-in slot bracket, bodily movement of the incisor was obtained with
9.1-mm length of the power arm. When a 0.022-in slot system was coupled with a 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire,
bodily movement was observed with a power arm length of 11.6 mm. Conclusions: Archwire/bracket play
has a remarkable impact on anterior tooth movement. An effective torque application to the anterior teeth be-
comes clinically difficult in sliding mechanics combined with power arms when the archwire/bracket play is large.
(Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:166-74)

T
he demand for speedy, effective, and accurate
orthodontic treatment systems has increased to
shorten the treatment period.1-6 Accordingly, the
a
Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan;
research fellow, Department of Oral Technology, School of Dentistry, University
of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
b
Postgraduate student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthope-
dics, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki,
Japan.
c
Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.
d
Senior assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Ortho-
pedics, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki,
Japan.
e
Cendres+M
etaux endowed professor and chair, Department of Oral Technology,
School of Dentistry, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
f
Professor and chair, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics,
Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University, Nagasaki, Japan.
All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of
Potential Conflicts of Interest, and none were reported.
Address correspondence to: Noriaki Yoshida, Department of Orthodontics
and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Nagasaki University Graduate School of Biomedical
Sciences, 1-7-1 Sakamoto, Nagasaki 852-8588, Japan; e-mail, nori@
nagasaki-u.ac.jp.
Submitted, September 2013; revised and accepted, April 2014.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright Ó 2014 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.04.016
166
use of implant anchorage in sliding mechanics has
become more common all around the world. In
addition to this system, sliding mechanics with the
combined use of power arms has gradually been
applied for obtaining controlled anterior tooth
movements during space closure (Fig 1). That is, the
desired type of anterior tooth movement, such as lingual
crown tipping, bodily movement, or lingual root tipping,
can be easily achieved by attaching various lengths of
power arms onto an archwire in sliding mechanics.7-14
Several studies have been carried out to investigate
various biomechanical factors affecting tooth movement
in sliding mechanics, such as the flexural rigidity of the
archwire, friction, and height of the retraction
force.8,12–16 However, optimal loading conditions for
controlled movement of anterior teeth in sliding
mechanics combined with power arms are not fully
understood. A few attempts with the finite element (FE)
method have been reported on tooth displacement
when a single canine retraction or an en-masse retraction
is performed in sliding mechanics.17-19 In those studies,
spring elements are used between a tooth and an
archwire instead of friction between the surface of a
bracket slot and an archwire. Therefore, the mechanical
Tominaga et al
Fig 1. Intraoral picture of the en-masse maxillary anterior
tooth retraction in sliding mechanics combined with power
arms and skeletal anchorages.
condition is not sufficiently accurate to approximate an
actual clinical situation. To our knowledge, there are
only 2 studies that simulate en-masse retraction when
brackets were modeled and a coefficient of friction was
given to the interface between bracket slots and an arch-
wire including contact-sliding problems.20,21 It was
found that the anterior tooth movement varied
depending on the amount of archwire/bracket play.
However, the effect of play on anterior tooth
movement has not been fully understood; clinicians
must consider this in an actual clinical situation for any
treatment step in sliding mechanics.
The purpose of this study was to clarify the effect of
the bracket slot and archwire dimensions on anterior
tooth movement during space closure in sliding me-
chanics by means of a 3-dimensional (3D) FE model.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The construction method of the 3D FE model has
been described previously.20 Computed tomography im-
ages of the 14 maxillary teeth, taken with a multi-image
cone-beam computed tomography scanner (3DX; J.
Morita, Kyoto, Japan), were saved as DICOM data and
exported to 3D image processing and editing software
(Mimics 10.02; Materialize Software, Leuven, Belgium).
The 3D solid model was created and converted to a 3D
FE model using FE analysis preprocess and postprocess
software (Patran 2008r1; MSC Software, Los Angeles,
Calif). Each 3D FE model for the periodontal ligament
(PDL), alveolar bone, bracket, archwire, and power arm
was separately constructed using the same software.
The PDL had a uniform thickness of 0.2 mm.22-24 The
bracket height of the maxillary central incisor was
placed according to a prescription, which was 4.5 mm
in height from the incisal edge of the tooth.25,26 Two
3D solid models were constructed. One had the
combination of brackets with a 0.018 3 0.025-in slot
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
167
and a 0.017 3 0.022-in stainless steel archwire, and
the other had 0.022 3 0.028-in slot brackets and a
0.019 3 0.025-in archwire. Based on these 3D solid
models, an FE mesh was created to make a node-to-
node connection between tooth, PDL, and alveolar
bone. An FE mesh of the archwire was created separately
from the bracket to allow the archwire to slide through
the bracket slots. The 3D FE model consisted of
423,772 isoparametric tetrahedral solid elements
(10 noded) and 83,790 nodes, or 432,356 elements
and 85,957 nodes (Fig 2).
The material parameters used in this study are repre-
sented in the Table.23,24 To simplify the model and
reduce the time for analysis, the same properties were
given to the archwires, power arms, and brackets. Other
structures such as teeth, alveolar bone, and PDL were
modeled as homogenous and isotropic for the same reason.
Assuming that the case model was diagnosed as
maxillary protrusion, bilateral maxillary first premolar
extractions were indicated. The model included 12 teeth,
and 2 skeletal anchorages (miniscrews or miniplate im-
plants) were inserted at both sides of the buccal region
between the second premolar and the first molar. Two
power arms were attached onto an archwire bilaterally
at the segment between the lateral incisor and the
canine, and these lengths were changed from 0 to
12 mm with 0.1-mm intervals from the bracket slot level
(Fig 3). The horizontal retraction force of 1.5 N was
applied from the implant anchorage to the power arm
on both sides. The model was restrained in 6 of freedom
at the bottom of the alveolar bone. The coefficient of
friction between the bracket slots and the archwire was
assumed to be 0.2.27-29 A cross-sectional view indicating
the boundary between the bracket and the archwire is
shown in Figure 4. The archwire was horizontally posi-
tioned to contact the bottom surface of the bracket slots
and vertically in the middle of the bracket. Under these
conditions, 3D FE analysis was performed using a 3D
FE program (Marc; MSC Software). We analyzed how
the archwire was deformed and, consequently, how the
maxillary central incisor moved. Then we compared the
results obtained with the 0.017 3 0.022-in stainless
steel archwire in the 0.018-in slot and the
0.019 3 0.025-in archwire in the 0.022-in slot.
RESULTS
The relationship between the degree of labiolingual
tipping of the maxillary central incisor and the height
of retraction force on the power arm is shown in
Figure 5. If the 0.017 3 0.022-in stainless steel archwire
was engaged into the 0.018-in slot brackets as shown by
a solid line in Figure 5, lingual crown tipping of the
August 2014  Vol 146  Issue 2
168
Fig 2. Three-dimensional FE model of the maxillary dentition, including the PDL, alveolar bone,
brackets, and archwire.
Table. Material parameters of tooth, PDL, alveolar
bone, archwire, power arm, and bracket
Young's
Material modulus (MPa) Poisson's ratio
Tooth 20000 0.30
PDL 0.05 0.30
Alveolar bone 2000 0.30
Archwire/power arm/bracket 200000 0.30
maxillary central incisor was observed when the retrac-
tion force was applied at 0 mm, which corresponds to
the bracket slot level. The direction of tooth rotation
changed from lingual crown tipping to lingual root
tipping as the level of the retraction force on the power
arm was moved apically from the bracket slot level. At
the height of 9.1 mm, no rotation was observed; ie,
bodily movement occurred. Lingual root tipping of the
incisor was produced when the retraction force was set
above 9.1 mm. When the 0.022-in slot bracket system
was combined with the 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire,
bodily movement of the incisor was achieved at the
height level of the retraction force of 11.6 mm as shown
by a dotted line in Figure 5, although the rotational
endency was the same as the 0.018-in slot system.
Figure 6 shows the loading conditions under
which controlled anterior tooth movements, such as
controlled lingual root tipping, bodily movement,
and controlled lingual crown tipping, can be
achieved. Controlled lingual root tipping is defined
August 2014  Vol 146  Issue 2
Tominaga et al
as the type of tooth movement in which the tooth
tips around its incisal edge as the center of rotation.
On the other hand, controlled lingual crown tipping
indicates the movement in which the tooth tips
around its root apex as the center of rotation.
If the 0.017 3 0.022-in archwire was used in a 0.018-
in slot, controlled lingual root tipping was carried out at
the height of the retraction force of 9.5 mm, which was
2.3 mm higher than the level of the center of resistance.
At a height of 9.1 mm, bodily movement was achieved.
Controlled lingual crown tipping was observed at the
8.3-mm height of retraction force level (Fig 6, A).
When the 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire was used in the
0.022-in slot, controlled lingual root tipping was ob-
tained at the height of 13.0 mm. Bodily movement
was produced at an 11.6-mm height of retraction force.
Controlled lingual crown tipping occurred at a level of
10.3-mm height (Fig 6, B).
The deformation of the archwire and the resultant
displacement of the maxillary central incisor and first
molar after the application of retraction force at the level
of 12 mm are shown in Figure 7. For a better under-
standing of the deformation of the archwire and the
tooth displacement, these displacements were magnified
50 times, and the displacements of the central incisor
were focused on. The tooth and the archwire in blue
show the initial positions.
When the 0.017 3 0.022-in archwire was used in the
0.018-in slot, the anterior segment of the archwire was
deformed upward. The root of the maxillary central
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Tominaga et al 169

Fig 3. Illustration of the experimental conditions of anterior tooth retraction with the combinations of
various lengths of power arms and skeletal anchorage in sliding mechanics.

Fig 4. Cross-sectional view of the archwire/bracket interface in the FE model.

incisor was moved lingually, and the crown was moved
labially (Fig 7, A). The labiolingual tipping was 0.17
(lingual root tipping).
When the 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire was used in the
0.022-in slot, the incisor showed almost bodily move-
ment with less lingual root tipping of 0.02 , although
the tendency of archwire deformation was similar to that
of the 0.018-in slot coupled with the 0.017 3 0.022-in
archwire (Fig 7, B).
DISCUSSION
We found that the dimension of the play between the
bracket slot and the archwire has a significant impact on
anterior tooth movement when the retraction force was
applied to a power arm in sliding mechanics. Even if the
same height of the horizontal retraction force was
applied, there were great discrepancies in the types of
anterior tooth movement between the 2 combinations

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2014  Vol 146  Issue 2
170
Fig. 5. Degree of the labiolingual tipping of the maxillary
central incisor subjected to the various heights of retrac-
tion force on the power arm. Positive signs indicate lingual
crown tipping, whereas negative signs indicate lingual
root tipping.
of bracket slot size and archwire size. When the height
level of the force was increased, this discrepancy was
also increased (Fig 5). Although controlled tooth move-
ment from lingual crown tipping to lingual root tipping
can be easily achieved with a 0.017 3 0.022-in archwire
in a 0.018-in slot, lingual root tipping can hardly be
generated with power arms shorter than 10 mm if a
0.019 3 0.025-in archwire is used in a 0.022-in slot.
This might be due to the difference in the play between
brackets and archwires.
From a biomechanical point of view, it has been
stated that the type of tooth movement, such as lingual
crown tipping, bodily movement, or lingual root tipping,
is determined by the relationship between a line of ac-
tion of a force and the location of the center of resistance
of a tooth, and a single force passing through the center
of resistance causes bodily tooth movement.7,30,31
However, as shown in Figure 6, the tooth movements
analyzed in this study did not agree with that concept
based on the biomechanical principles. Since the loca-
tion of the center of resistance of the maxillary central
incisor in the FE model, which we used, was determined
to be at the level of 7.2 mm apically from the bracket
slot, bodily movement of the incisor was expected to
be produced at the height of 7.2 mm of retraction force.
Nevertheless, FE analysis showed that bodily movement
of the incisor occurred at the height of 9.1 mm, which is
1.9 mm apical to the level of the center of resistance with
August 2014  Vol 146  Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Tominaga et al
a 0.017 3 0.022-in archwire in a 0.018-in slot (Fig 6, A).
On the other hand, bodily movement occurs at the level
of 11.6 mm, which is 4.4 mm apical to the position of the
center of resistance with a 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire in
a 0.022-in slot (Fig 6, B). Those results indicate that the
concepts based on theoretical considerations cannot be
simply applied to multibracket appliances.
When a 0.017 3 0.022-in archwire is used in a 0.018-
in slot, longer power arms than the perpendicular
distance from the bracket level to the center of resistance
are required to achieve controlled movement of the
anterior teeth, including controlled lingual root tipping,
bodily movement, and controlled lingual crown tipping
(Fig 6, A). If a 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire is engaged into
a 0.022-in slot, much longer power arms are required to
produce any anterior tooth movement (Fig 6, B).
As mentioned in the previous articles, when long
power arms were used, a substantial amount of bending
moment is generated at the portion of the archwire
where the power arms were attached as a cantilever ef-
fect.20,21 As a result, the anterior segment of the
archwire was raised upward, causing lingual root
tipping with a full-sized 0.018 3 0.025-in archwire.
Although in this study we found similar results for the
phenomenon of the cantilever effect, bodily movement
or lingual root tipping seems to be difficult to obtain
with the 0.022-in slot system compared with the
0.018-in slot system in sliding mechanics with the
combined use of power arms. Since the torsion of the
archwire within a bracket slot and its general deforma-
tion were considered to have major impacts on tooth
movement, displacements of the archwire and the
resultant tooth displacement were analyzed when
0.017 3 0.022-in and 0.019 3 0.025-in archwires are
used (Fig 7). The anterior segment of the archwire is sub-
jected to torsion caused by the power arms. When a
0.017 3 0.022-in archwire is used in a 0.018-in slot,
the torque is likely to be practically transmitted to the
bracket on the incisor. Moreover, a smaller play between
the brackets and the archwire might contribute to a more
efficient torque application. Thus, lingual root tipping
can be clinically achieved with power arms in the
0.018-in slot (Fig 7, A). Contrary to this, the torsion of
the archwire is less likely to be transmitted effectively
to the incisor because of the greater play between the
brackets and the archwire, thereby causing less lingual
root tipping in the 0.022-in slot (Fig 7, B).
To compare the interaction of an archwire with
brackets on the incisor in the 0.018-in slot with that
in the 0.022-in slot and elucidate the mechanism of
generation of lingual root torque, the sagittal cross-
sectional view at the mesial surface of the maxillary
central incisor bracket was constructed before and after
Tominaga et al 171

Fig 6. Loading conditions when controlled movements of a maxillary central incisor are obtained:
A, 0.017 3 0.022-in archwire in 0.018-in slot; B, 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire in 0.022-in slot. CRe, Center
of resistance; CRo, center of rotation.

Fig 7. Displacement of the maxillary central incisor and the deformation of the archwire on the appli-
cation of retraction force at the height of 12 mm. For a better understanding of the displacement of the
tooth and deformation of the archwire, these movements are magnified 50 times. Initial positions of the
tooth and archwire are indicated by blue lines. A, 0.017 3 0.022-in archwire in 0.018-in slot;
B, 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire in 0.022-in slot.

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics August 2014  Vol 146  Issue 2
172 Tominaga et al

Fig 8. Sagittal cross-section at the mesial surface of the maxillary central incisor bracket before exert-
ing retraction force (left) and after the application of the force at the height of 12 mm (right):
0.017 3 0.022-in archwire in 0.018-in slot (top) and 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire in 0.022-in slot (bottom).

the application of the orthodontic force at the level of
12 mm (Fig 8). When an archwire is twisted by a
bending moment of the power arms, the diagonally
opposite corners of the archwire contact the surface
of the bracket slot. Then a pair of normal forces, called
lingual root tipping moments, is generated. That is,
torque acting on the anterior tooth becomes applicable
with a combination of a 0.017 3 0.022-in archwire and
0.018-in slot brackets with smaller archwire/bracket
clearances (Fig 8, top). However, a normal force in
the downward direction is not produced at this cross-
sectional view when a 0.019 3 0.025-in archwire was
used in the 0.022-in slot, which has a larger play
(Fig 8, bottom). Although the horizontal dimension of
the play in the 0.018-in slot system is the same as
that in the 0.022-in slot, the vertical dimension of the
play in the 0.022-in slot is 3 times as large as that in
the 0.018-in slot (Fig 8). This indicates that play in
the vertical dimension has a greater impact on the
movements of the anterior teeth than in the horizontal
dimension. It is considered that the greater the play be-
tween the archwire and the bracket, the weaker the
normal forces. As a result, less lingual root tipping
moment is transmitted to the incisor in the 0.022-in
slot system. Therefore, it becomes more difficult to pre-
scribe an optimal power arm length for achieving the
desired type of anterior tooth movement if there is a
large archwire/bracket clearance.
As mentioned above, the dimension of the play is
the most influential factor in determining the type
of anterior tooth movement in sliding mechanics
combined with power arms. Thus, the conventional
biomechanical principles of tooth movement in ortho-
dontics cannot be directly applied in actual clinical sit-
uations. Although a comprehension of the relationship
between a line of action of a retraction force and the
position of the center of resistance of a tooth is an
important key to an estimation of how the tooth will
move, the effect of the archwire deflection within
the bracket slot and its general deformation on the
force system acting on a tooth should also be consid-
ered (Figs 7 and 8).
Although applying a retraction force on the power
arm modifies the type of anterior tooth movement in
sliding mechanics in a simple way, quite long power
arms of 10 to 13 mm are required to achieve controlled
movement of the anterior teeth in the 0.022-in slot sys-
tem. Particularly, controlled lingual root tipping is only
obtained with power arms of 13 mm; this is too long
to be applied in a clinical situation. In this case, the
use of high-torque brackets on the anterior teeth seems
recommendable to optimize torque application.

August 2014  Vol 146  Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Tominaga et al
Even if the 0.018-in slot system is coupled with a
0.017 3 0.022-in archwire, power arms longer than
9 mm are required for obtaining bodily movement or
lingual root tipping. Therefore, the clinical application
of power arms combined with sliding mechanics is
difficult in some patients whose gingivobuccal fold is
shallow.
Also, it is necessary to give full consideration to
anatomic parameters that vary between patients to
precisely predict the tooth movements during the ortho-
dontic treatment. Especially, an estimation of the center
of resistance position is of utmost clinical importance
because the required length of the power arm producing
a certain type of tooth movement is closely related to the
location of the center of resistance. The height of the
retraction force relative to the level of the center of resis-
tance is more critical than the length of the power arm,
which by itself has no consequence. For example, power
arms 1.1 mm longer than the perpendicular distance
from the bracket level to the center of resistance are indi-
cated for achieving controlled lingual crown tipping in
the 0.018-in slot system (Fig 6).
A clinical study is needed to confirm these conclu-
sions from this FE investigation; it should consider not
only the relationship between the line of action of a
retraction force and the location of the center of resis-
tance of a tooth, but also the effect of the archwire
deformation including the torsion within the different
dimensions of bracket slots and archwires. This will be
a great help in establishing an optimal treatment plan
and achieving speedy, effective, and accurate orthodon-
tic tooth movement.
CONCLUSIONS
Controlled anterior tooth movement can be achieved
in sliding mechanics with the combined use of power
arms as long as the archwire/bracket clearance is small.
The dimension of the play that is determined by the
combination of the bracket slot size and the archwire
size has a great impact on the control of the anterior
tooth movement. The greater the archwire/bracket play
becomes, the more difficult it is to apply an effective
torque to the anterior teeth.
Optimal power-arm length must be longer than the
perpendicular distance from the bracket level to the cen-
ter of resistance of the anterior tooth to obtain any type
of anterior tooth movement. Particularly with a large
archwire/bracket play, much longer power arms are
necessary to apply an effective torque. Therefore, a clin-
ical application of power arms combined with sliding
mechanics becomes more difficult for patients with a
limited depth of the gingivobuccal fold.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
173
REFERENCES
1. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of
mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveo-
lar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:18-29.
2. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for
en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalo-
metric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:803-10.
3. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Nanda R. Dentoskeletal and soft
tissue effects of mini-Implants in Class II division 1 patients. Angle
Orthod 2009;79:240-7.
4. Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q. Comparison of the differences in
cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment
applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult
patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil 2009;
36:687-95.
5. Lee KJ, Park YC, Hwang CJ, Kim YJ, Choi TH, Yoo HM, et al.
Displacement pattern of the maxillary arch depending on minis-
crew position in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2011;140:224-32.
6. Koyama I, Iino S, Abe Y, Takano-Yamamoto T, Miyawaki S. Differ-
ences between sliding mechanics with implant anchorage and
straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in adults with
bimaxillary protrusion. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:126-31.
7. Smith RJ, Burstone CJ. Mechanics of tooth movement. Am J
Orthod 1984;85:294-307.
8. Nanda R, Ghosh J. Biomechanical considerations in sliding me-
chanics. In: Nanda R, editor. Biomechanics in clinical orthodontics.
Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders; 1997. p. 188-217.
9. Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with miniscrew implant
anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004;74:703-10.
10. Jung MH, Kim TW. Biomechanical considerations in treatment
with miniscrew anchorage. Part 1: the sagittal plane. J Clin Orthod
2008;42:79-83.
11. Basha AG, Shantaraj R, Mogegonwda SB. Comparative study be-
tween conventional en-masse retraction (sliding mechanics) and
en-masse retraction using orthodontic micro implant. Implant
Dent 2011;19:128-36.
12. Sia SS, Shibazaki T, Koga Y, Yoshida N. Speedy, accurate and
controllable anterior teeth retraction by an improved method: a
sliding mechanics force system with power arms. Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference on the Biological Mechanisms
of Tooth Eruption, Resorption and Movement: Phuket, Thailand,
2005 Nov 7-10. Boston: Harvard Society for the Advancement
of Orthodontics, 2005:297-303.
13. Sia SS, Koga Y, Yoshida N. Determining the center of resistance of
maxillary anterior teeth subjected to retraction forces in sliding
mechanics: an in vivo study. Angle Orthod 2007;77:999-1003.
14. Sia SS, Shibazaki T, Koga Y, Yoshida N. Experimental determina-
tion of optimal force system required for control of anterior tooth
movement in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2009;135:36-41.
15. Moore JC, Waters NE. Factors affecting tooth movement in sliding
mechanics. Eur J Orthod 1993;15:235-41.
16. Barlow M, Kula K. Factors influencing efficiency of sliding me-
chanics to close extraction space: a systematic review. Orthod
Craniofac Res 2008;11:65-73.
17. Kojima Y, Fukui H. Numerical simulation of canine retraction by
sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:
542-51.
18. Kojima Y, Fukui H, Miyajima K. The effects of friction and flexural
rigidity of the archwire on canine movement in sliding mechanics: a
August 2014  Vol 146  Issue 2
174
numerical simulation with a 3-dimensional finite element method.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:275.e1-10.
19. Kojima Y, Fukui H. Numeric simulations of en-masse space closure
with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;
138:702.e1-6.
20. 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.
21. Tominaga J, Chiang PC, Ozaki H, Tanaka M, Koga Y, Bourauel C,
et al. Effect of play between bracket and archwire on anterior tooth
movement in sliding mechanics: a three-dimensional finite
element study. J Dent Biomech 2012;3:1758736012461269.
22. Coolidge ED. The thickness of the human periodontal membrane. J
Am Dent Assoc Dent Cosmos 1937;24:1260-70.
23. Vollmer D, Bourauel C, Maier K, J€ager A. Determination of the
centre of resistance in an upper human canine and idealized tooth
model. Eur J Orthod 1999;21:633-48.
24. Reimann S, Keilig L, J€ager A, Bourauel C. Biomechanical finite-
element investigation of the position of the centre of resistance
of the upper incisors. Eur J Orthod 2007;29:219-24.
August 2014  Vol 146  Issue 2 American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Tominaga et al
25. Roth RH. Treatment mechanics for the straight wire appliance.
In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, editors. Orthodontics: current prin-
ciples and techniques. 2nd ed. St Louis: Mosby; 1994. p.
685-711.
26. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC. Bracket placement with the pread-
justed appliance. J Clin Orthod 1995;29:302-11.
27. 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.
28. Kusy RP. Effect of salivary viscosity on frictional coefficients of
orthodontic archwire/bracket couples. J Mater Sci Mater Med
1995;6:390-5.
29. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-bracket
configurations and materials. Semin Orthod 1997;3:166-77.
30. Mulligan TF. Common sense mechanics. J Clin Orthod 1979;13:
676-83.
31. Vanden Bulcke MM, Burstone CJ, Sachdeva RC, Dermaut LR. Loca-
tion of the centers of resistance for anterior teeth during retraction
using the laser reflection technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1987;91:375-84.