10.

5005/jp-journals-10021-1131
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Parikshit Rajkumar Rao et al

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
1
Parikshit Rajkumar Rao, 2Sunita S Shrivastav, 3Rishi A Joshi

ABSTRACT

Introduction: M/F ratio, F/D rate, amount of force produced and the configuration of a loop affects the complex biomechanics involved in a
translatory type of tooth/teeth movement for closure of extraction space.
Aim: To evaluate the biomechanical properties of snail loop and compare it with teardrop loop and opus loop.
Materials and methods: Finite element method analysis was carried out by utilizing Ansys10 and 11software in a computer loaded with IBM.
A total of 13 finite element models were constructed and 14 analyses were conducted in the study.
Results: Inherently the M/F ratio produced was higher and F/D rate produced was least for opus loop compared to snail loop and teardrop loop.
Conclusion: With incorporation of 20°gable bends snail loop prepared in 0.017 × 0.025 inch and 0.019 × 0.025 inch TMA wire is very efficient to
deliver M/F ratio required for translatory tooth movement with acceptable F/D rate. Snail loop is easy to fabricate and finer shape morphology
prevents tissue impingement.
Keywords: Snail loop, Opus loop, Teardrop loop, FEM.

How to cite this article: 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 Ind Orthod Soc 2013;47(2):62-67.

INTRODUCTION loops can be tested in the laboratory and the clinician can then
Space closure forms a major fraction of orthodontic treatment. fabricate the spring in accordance.2,3
Extraction space closure is carried out by retraction of The retraction loop should have an optimum size to fit into
the vestibule causing no discomfort to the patient and must be
anteriors or protraction of posteriors, depending upon the type
easy to fabricate. For a translatory tooth movement, retraction
of anchorage requirements.1 Modus operandi for closure of
loop should provide sufficiently high moment-to-force (M/F)
extraction spaces in preadjusted edgewise appliance therapy ratio and low force to deflection (F/D) rate to maintain optimum
are: Friction mechanics or frictionless mechanics.2 force levels for a longer duration of time.4 Keeping these
The advantage of frictionless mechanics is that there is no clinical considerations into mind; clinicians have proposed a
dissipation of force by friction. Various retraction loops, such variety of clinical modifications in the design of the loop,
as teardrop, opus, etc. are used as force system in frictionless degree of bends, type, dimension and material of an archwire.
mechanics. In retraction loop mechanics the only known Teardrop loop5 is very simple to fabricate, but the inherent
disadvantage is that, the loop may fail to produce ideal expected M/F ratio of loop is inadequate for causing translatory motion
results in practice due to the complexity of loop fabrication of the teeth. Opus loop design inherently produces M/F ratio
and some unknown factors. The force system of retraction close to 10:1.6 One major disadvantage with this retraction
loop is the tissue impingement caused by it.
A blend of both the designs is seen to be integrated in
1,3
Senior Lecturer, 2Professor
snail loop.7 It has got design configuration similar to teardrop
1 loop and additionally has got a helix in its design similar to
Department of Orthodontia, KM Shah Dental College, Vadodara
Gujarat, India opus loop. For any retraction loop to be made universally
2 acceptable a complete knowledge of its biomechanical
Department of Orthodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College, Wardha
Maharashtra, India properties are very essential. Literature search revealed that
3
Department of Orthodontics, Hitkarini Dental College, Jabalpur, Madhya the biomechanical efficiency of snail loop has not yet been
Pradesh, India
analyzed. Present study evaluates the biomechanical efficiency
Corresponding Author: Parikshit Rajkumar Rao, Senior Lecturer of snail loop and compares it to that of teardrop loop and opus
Department of Orthodontia, KM Shah Dental College, Vadodara, Gujarat loop which are frequently used for en masse space closure.
India, e-mail: raoparikshit83@yahoo.in
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Received on: 3/3/12 Mathematical approach and experimental methods are
Accepted after Revision: 25/8/12 routinely used for analyzing M/F ratio and F/D rate of loop

62 JAYPEE
 JIOS

Evaluation and Comparison of Biomechanical Properties of Snail Loop with that of Opus Loop and Teardrop Loop

designs.8,9 Laser holography,10 photoelastic models/typodont11

are various experimental approaches that routinely utilized by
clinicians for extensive analysis of retraction loops. Since the
above mentioned experimental approaches are time consuming
and expensive, presently finite element method (FEM), which
is observed to be used extensively to study loop designs, was
used for this study.6
Ansys V10 and V11 finite element software was used to
construct a three-dimensional model of the retraction loops
after which forces and moments produced by loop geometries
in all three-dimensions were studied.
A computer loaded with IBM consisting of Ansys as the
pre- and postprocessor and Ansys direct solver which
investigated the three-dimensional outcome of individual
Fig. 3: Dimensions of opus loop used for modeling
loops were used in the study. Based on the dimensions
prescribed by the respective authors (Figs 1 to 3) a total of 13
FEM models were constructed and 14 analyses were conducted often preferred wire dimension is 0.017 × 0.025 inch and
0.019 × 0.025 inch wire dimensions. Any variation in the
in the study.5-7
The horizontal length of all the loop models (distance material of wire produces a different F/D rate. Hence we chose
between the anterior and the posterior node) were kept 13 mm both TMA and SS wires of both 0.017 × 0.025 inch and 0.019
× 0.025 inch wire dimensions.
considering the interbracket distance from the second
premolar midpoint to the canine midpoint considering a first Following 13 FEM models were prepared for the study:
premolar extraction case (Figs 4 to 7). • Three models for snail loop were prepared in 0.017 ×
0.025 inch TMA wire with 0°, 10° and 20°  preactivation
Titanium molybdenum alloy (TMA) and stainless steel (SS)
are the most commonly used wires for making loops. Most of bends.
the loop mechanics advocate full slot engagement and most • Two models for snail loop were prepared in 0.017 × 0.025
inch SS wire with 0° and 10°  preactivation bend.
• Four models for snail loop were prepared in 0.019 × 0.025
inch TMA wire with 0°, 5°, 10° and 20°  preactivation
bends.
• Two models of snail loop were prepared in 0.019 × 0.025
inch SS wire with 0° and 10°  preactivation bend.
• One model each of teardrop loop and opus loop was
generated in 0.019 × 0.025 inch TMA wire without any
preactivation bends.

Method of Analysis for Different

Combinations of FEM Model
1. Loops without preactivation bend: A fixed point was
determined at the terminal node on the alpha side
Fig. 1: Dimensions of teardrop loop used for modeling

Fig. 2: Dimensions of snail loop used for modeling Fig. 4: FEM model prepared for teardrop loop without any
preactivation bend

The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, April-June 2013;47(2):62-67 63

Parikshit Rajkumar Rao et al

2. Loops with preactivation bend: To simulate the

engagement of the wire in the brackets a rotation was added
to the alpha end until the horizontal leg was completely
horizontal and collinear with the bracket slot. The exact
displacement at the alpha node was recorded to obtain
information about the amount of cross-over produced
when the wire was engaged. This point was neutral position
for all the loops and starting point for all the activations.
Subsequently the terminal node on the beta side was
displaced by a predetermined distance after which the force
and the moment produced on the terminal node on the alpha
side were recorded.

RESULTS
Fig. 5: FEM model prepared for opus loop without any Finite element analysis was carried out for different FEM
preactivation bend
models and MCSPD code was given to different models
prepared, where:
• M represents material types (TMA or SS)
• C represents configurations of loops (teardrop, Tr, opus,
Op and snail, Sn loops)
• S represents size of wire (0.017 × 0.025 inch as S1 and
0.019 × 0.025 inch as S2)
• P represents preactivation angle alpha (zero degree as 0°,
five degrees as 5°, ten degrees as 10°, twenty degrees as
20°)
• D represents displacement, the amount of activation of
the given loop model (1 mm as D1 and 2 mm as D2).
Total 13 FEM models were studied to evaluate the M/F
ratio, F/D rate and the maximum force generated by the
respective loop models after their activation.
Results of the study are tabulated as shown in Tables 1 to 3.
Fig. 6: FEM model prepared for snail loop prepared without any
preactivation bend
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to optimize the utilization of snail
loop by understanding its biomechanical properties and also
compare it with opus and teardrop loop.
It was observed that the forces, moments and F/D rate
produced from SS dental archwire was nearly three times in
comparison to TMA. However, the changes observed in M/F
ratio was not appreciable when SS and TMA was compared
(Tables 1 and 2).
When dimension of wires was changed from S1 to S2 in
TMA wire a marginal increase in force produced and F/D rate
was observed. In SS archwire when the dimension of wires
was changed from S1 to S2 wire increase in force produced
Fig. 7: FEM model prepared for snail loop prepared with
and F/D were substantial (Tables 1 and 2).
preactivation bend on  side Bodily tooth movement requires production of uniform
stress on PDL with a light continuous force.12 The inherent
(corresponding to the canine bracket) on the FEM model. M/F ratio produced by snail loop is not adequate to impart
Subsequently the terminal node on the beta side translatory movement of the dentition. To increase the M/F
(corresponding to the second premolar bracket) was ratio gable/preactivation bends have to be incorporated into
displaced by a predetermined distance after which the force the loop. Snail loop prepared in either TMA or SS archwire
and the moment produced on the terminal node on the alpha produced optimum M/F ratio for bodily movement after giving
side were recorded on the Ansys software. 20°  preactivation bend (Tables 1 and 2).

64 JAYPEE
 JIOS

Evaluation and Comparison of Biomechanical Properties of Snail Loop with that of Opus Loop and Teardrop Loop

F/D rate produced by snail loop models prepared in TMA with dimension of S1 having 20°  preactivation bend
wire was comparatively less when compared to models produced a maximum force of 328.3 gm after D2
prepared in SS wire (Tables 1 and 2). This observation was displacement. These loop models provided ideal force levels
further substantiated in Graph 1. Reason for such an with acceptable M/F ratio. Forces produced by models
observation could be attributed to various physical properties prepared in stainless steel were very high (Tables 1 and 2).
exhibited by TMA wire.13 This is an important observation as TMA wires delivered more constant moments throughout
loops with high F/D rate tend to deactivate faster and can exert the range of deflection and thus the center of rotation of the
stresses up to a level which can be traumatic to the dentition was kept constant throughout the range of tooth
periodontium and alveolar bone. Lower F/D ratio delivers a movement (Graph 2). Several factors related both to the thermo-
constant force as the tooth moves and the appliance gets mechanical processing of the wire and the larger elastic range,
deactivated late in comparison to loops producing higher F/D which requires a different bending technique, could justify this
ratio.13 finding.13 Hence, TMA loops are more preferable due to their
For individual bodily canine retraction a force of 150 and larger range and more consistent force delivery.
300 gm for anterior retraction is recommended.14 A force Comparison between snail, teardrop and opus loop prepared
level of 70 to 120 gm is needed for bodily movement of the in S2 dimension in TMA wire without giving any preactivation
dentition.15 Force level of 100 gm is recommended for incisor bend at D1 displacement showed that M/F ratio of opus loop
retraction on each side.16 A force range of 320 to 350 gm for was 9.8 mm, teardrop loop was 4.5 mm and for snail loop was
upper anteriors and 270 to 290 gm is required for lower 5.5 mm (Table 3). The M/F ratio produced by all the loop
anteriors.17 A force level of 200 gm for en mass retraction models was constant throughout the period of activation
for frictional mechanics has been recommended.18 (Graph 3).
Snail loop model prepared in TMA wire with dimension Thus, we can observe that inherently opus loop produces
of S2 having 20°  bend produced maximum force of 339 gm an ideal M/F ratio required for bodily translation of the
after D2 displacement, snail loop model prepared in TMA wire dentition. The height of the opus loop being more as compared

Table 1: Comparison of snail loop prepared in SS and TMA wires in S1 dimension

Material of Preactivation Force produced at Moments produced at F/D rate at M/F ratio at
the wire bend () displacement D1 displacement D1 displacement D1 displacement
and D2 (gm) and D2 (gm/mm) and D2 (gm/mm) D1 and D2 (mm)

1 (mm) 2 (mm) 1 (mm) 2 (mm) 1 (mm) 2 (mm)

TMA 0° 127.5 — 7.04 — 127.5 5.59 —

10° 160.4 321.3 11.28 22.56 160.65 7.15 7.15
20° 166.4 328.3 12.95 25.87 164.15 8.2 8.2
SS 0° 318.2 635.5 17.51 35.02 317.75 5.59 5.59
10° 336.2 647.5 25.27 50.51 323.26 8.07 8.07

Table 2: Comparison of snail loop prepared in SS and TMA wires in S2 dimension

Material of Preactivation Force produced at Moments produced at F/D rate (gm/mm) M/F ratio at
the wire bend () displacement D1 displacement D1 displacement D1
and D2 (gm) and D2 (gm/mm) and D2 (mm)
1 (mm) 2 (mm) 1 (mm) 2 (mm) 1 (mm) 2 (mm)

TMA 0° 152 — 8.84 — 152 5.59 —

5° 160 — 12.89 — 160 8.17 —
10° 168 — 16.65 — 168 10.5 —
10° 168 331 11.9 23.8 165.5 7.54 7.54
20° 180 339 13.8 27.7 169.5 8.8 8.8
SS 0° 388 — 21.9 — 388 5.59 —
10° 399 795 31.69 63.3 397.5 8.07 8.07

Table 3: Comparison of snail, opus and teardrop loops prepared in TMA wire with dimension of S2

Loop configuration Preactivation Initial Force produced Moments F/D rate M/F ratio (mm)
bend () displacement at 1 mm produced (gm/mm)
(mm) displacement at 1 mm
(gm) displacement
(gm/mm)

Snail loop (TM, Sn, S2, 0, D1) 0° 1 152 8.04 152 5.59
Tear drop loop (TM, Tr, S2, 0, D1) 0° 1 183 8.73 183.6 4.7
Opus loop (TM, Op, S2, 0, D1) 0° 1 55.08 5.40 55.08 9.8

The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, April-June 2013;47(2):62-67 65

Parikshit Rajkumar Rao et al

to the other two loops contributes to the increase observed in vertical leg during optimization of the design could be
the M/F ratio. This increased height of the opus loop can create attributed to such an observation.
problem of tissue impingement and reduce patient compliance.
F/D rate and maximum force generated of opus loop is CONCLUSION
the lowest compared to other two loops (Table 3). Thus after evaluating and comparing all the characteristics of
Configuration of the opus loop and 70° angulation given to its teardrop loop, opus loop and snail loop we conclude that snail

Graph 1: Comparison of F/D rate for snail, opus and teardrop loops prepared in S1 and S2 dimensions of wire

Graph 2: Comparison of moment to displacement curve for snail, opus and teardrop loops prepared in S1 and S2 dimensions of wire

Graph 3: Comparison of M/F ratio produced by snail, opus and teardrop loops prepared in S1 and S2 dimensions of wire

66 JAYPEE
 JIOS

Evaluation and Comparison of Biomechanical Properties of Snail Loop with that of Opus Loop and Teardrop Loop

loop has a definite advantage over teardrop loop in all respects 7. Vibhute PJ. Snail loop for low friction space closure. J Clin
of biomechanical characters. Orthodont 2008;42:233-34.
Snail loop with incorporation of gable bends is very 8. Rinaldi TC, Johnson BE. An analytical evaluation of a new spring
design for segmented space closure. Angle Orthod 1995;65:
efficient to deliver M/F ratio similar to that of opus loop.
187-98.
Finer shape morphology of snail loop provides ease of 9. Nagerl H, Burstone CJ. Centre of rotation with transverse forces:
fabrication and prevents tissue impingement which is a An experimental study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
drawback of opus loop. 1991;99:337-45.
For optimum utilization of snail loop it must be prepared 10. Burstone CJ, Pryputiniewicz RJ. Holographic determination of
in either 0.017 × 0.025 inch or 0.019 × 0.025 inch TMA wire the centre of rotation produced by orthodontic forces. Am J Orthod
and must be activated by 2 mm. Dentofac Orthop 1980 Apr;77(4):396-409.
No matter how precise we try to conduct our study we 11. Baetin LR. Canine retraction. A photoelastic study. Am J
Orthodont 1975;67(1):11-23.
cannot specifically simulate and construct an artificial oral
12. Mazza D, Mazza M. Specialized spring design in segmented
environment to conduct a study. Hence, a further assessment edgewise mechanics: Further verification of dedicated software.
on the clinical efficiency and ease of use of snail loop on Angle Orthodont 200;70:52-62.
patients has to be conducted. 13. Rabound DW, Faulkner MG, Lipset AW. Three-dimensional effect
in retraction appliance design. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
REFERENCES 1997;112:378-92.
14. Fortin J-M. Translation of premolars in the dog by controlling the
1. Braun S, Sjursen RC, Legan HL. On management of extraction
moment to force ratio on the crown. Am J Orthodont
site. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Othop 1997;112:645-55.
1971;59(6):541-49.
2. Staggers JA, Germane N. Clinical considerations in the use of
15. Proffit WR, Fields HW. The second stage of comprehensive
retraction mechanics. J Clin Orthodont 1991 June;25(6):364-69.
3. Choy K, Pae E-K, Kim KH, Park YC, Burstone CJ. Controlled treatment: Correction of molar relationship and space closure.
space closure with a statically determinate retraction system. Angle Section 7 of Chapter 17. Contemporary Orthodontics (3rd ed). St
Orthodont 2002;72:191-98. Louis, Missouri: Mosby 2001:567-69.
4. Burstone CJ, Koeng HA. Optimizing anterior and canine retraction. 16. Gjessing P. Controlled retraction of maxillary incisors. Am J Orthod
Am J Orthod 1976;70(1):1-18. Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:120-31.
5. Alexander AG. The vari-simplex discipline: Part-3 extraction 17. Hixon EH, Tikian HA, Callow GE, McDonald HW, Tacy RJ.
treatment. J Clin Orthodont 1983 Aug;537-47. Optimum force, differential force and anchorage. Am J
6. Siatowski RE. Continuous archwire closing loop design optimization Orthodontics 1969;55(1):437-57.
and verification. Part 1. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;112: 18. Bennet JC, McLaughlin RP. Controlled space closure with a pre-
393-402. adjusted appliance system. J Clin Orthodont 1990;24;251-60.

The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, April-June 2013;47(2):62-67 67