Friction: An Overview

P. Emile Rossouw

inding of the bracket on the guiding arch- fecting frictional resistance in orthodontic slid-
B wire (bracket-archwire interface) occurs
through a series of tipping and uprighting move-
ing mechanics include the following:
1. Physical/mechanical factors such as:
ments (Figs 1-3); it signifies orthodontic tooth
i) Archwire properties: a) material, b) cross-
movement, moreover, it creates friction.1
sectional shape/size, c) surface texture,
d) stiffness.
The Phenomenon Known as Friction ii) Bracket to archwire ligation: a) ligature
wires, b) elastomerics, c) method of liga-
Friction is a clinical challenge, particularly with
tion.
sliding mechanics, and must be dealt with effi-
iii) Bracket properties: a) material, b) surface
ciently to provide optimal orthodontic results
treatment, c) manufacturing process,
(Fig 4). An understanding of the terminology
d) slot width and depth, e) bracket design,
used in the context of friction is imperative, as
f) bracket prescription (first-order/in-out;
this insight enables the orthodontist appropriate
second-order/toe-in; third-order/torque).
utilization of orthodontic biomechanical princi-
iv) orthodontic appliances: a) interbracket
ples, as well as how it pertains to the orthodontic
distance, b) level of bracket slots between
appliances. The second article of this journal in
teeth, c) forces applied for retraction.
general deals with these concepts of friction. It
2. Biological factors such as:
will become clear why friction could delay treat-
a) saliva, b) plaque, c) acquired pellicle,
ment, moreover, it could be advantageous in
d) corrosion, e) food particles.
providing anchorage in respect to other
planned tooth movements. However, the an- In articles 3 and 4 of this issue, the relation-
chorage generated by the friction phenomenon ships of the various mechanical factors will be
could also cause unwanted tooth movements. explored and illustrated. Articles 5, 6, and 7 will,
Resistance during tooth movement may be a in addition to mechanical, also deal with some of
result of physical or biological parameters. the biological influences on the friction between
The orthodontic literature notes numerous bracket and archwire.
variables that affect the levels of friction at the
bracket-archwire interface. In addition, experi-
mental protocol and design often affect the out- What is Friction in Orthodontics?
come of in vitro frictional studies. The nature of Friction is a force that retards or resists the
friction in orthodontics is multi-factorial, de- relative motion of two objects in contact. The
rived from both a multitude of mechanical or direction of friction is tangential to the common
biological factors.2 Numerous variables have boundary of the two surfaces in contact.3 As two
been assessed using a variety of model systems surfaces in contact slide against each other, two
with nearly equally varying results. Variables af- components of total force arise: the frictional
force component (F) and the normal force com-
ponent (N) perpendicular to the contacting sur-
From the Department of Orthodontics, Baylor College of Den- faces and to the frictional force component.4
tistry, Dallas, TX. Frictional force is directly proportional to the
Address correspondence to Dr. P. Emile Rossouw, BSc, BChD, normal force, such that F ⫽ ␮N, where ␮ ⫽
BChD (Hons), MChD, PhD, FRCD(C), Professor and Clinic Direc- coefficient of friction.5 The static frictional force
tor, Department of Orthodontics, Baylor College of Dentistry, 3302 is the smallest force needed to start the motion
Gaston Avenue, Dallas, TX 75246.
© 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. of solid surfaces that were previously at rest with
1073-8746/03/0904-0002$30.00/0 each other, whereas the kinetic frictional force is
doi:10.1016/j.sodo.2003.08.002 the force that resists the sliding motion of one

218 Seminars in Orthodontics, Vol 9, No 4 (December), 2003: pp 218-222

 Friction 219

Figure 1. A patient with congenitally absent maxillary Figure 3. The maxillary canine is in position as a
lateral incisors; the treatment objective is to utilize the replacement for the lateral incisor and ready for es-
maxillary canine in the lateral incisor position. Fric- thetic recontouring where needed. These goals were
tion is needed to rotate and upright this mal-posi- attained by utilizing both friction and/or no friction
tioned canine. Note the figure 8 ligation of the central as part of the clinical treatment mechanotherapy.
incisors to prevent inappropriate movement, an ex-
ample of creating advantageous friction. Bracket de-
sign differences, as well as method of ligation, influ- wire and bracket restricting movement of the
ence the amount of friction.
entire tooth. Engagement of the archwire with
the bracket creates a counter-moment that will
solid object over another at a constant speed.6 As bring the root of the tooth in the direction the
the tooth moves in the direction of the applied crown has moved.3 The coupled sequence of
force, kinetic friction occurs between the successive crown tipping then root uprighting
bracket and archwire.7 Movement of the crown will continue along the same plane of space as
mostly precedes displacement of the root be- the direction of the applied motive force. This
cause a tipping moment is placed on the crown allows approximation of translation of the tooth
of the tooth. The moment that led to the tipping during sliding mechanics. The static and kinetic
is determined by the combination of the loca-
tion of the force application relative to the cen-
ter of resistance and the amount of resistance to
tooth movement.8 This tipping leads to in-
creased friction from binding between the arch-

Figure 4. The maxillary anterior segment is being

retracted utilizing Class I sliding mechanics. Note the
following aspects of the treatment mechanics that
have a detrimental impact on friction: 1) Anterior
segment ligated together to form a unit for en masse
retraction: anchorage considerations important to en-
Figure 2. A continuation of treatment also necessi- sure maintenance of the Class I relationship; 2) Ca-
tates uprighting of the canine in pursuit of an ideal nine with an elastic tie as well as steel tie over the
root-crown relationship. The frictionless posterior rectangular archwire: an increase in friction, sliding
wire-bracket interface allows the archwire to gently resistance, and subsequent impact on anchorage; 3)
slide posteriorly and protrude distally from the max- Elastic tie over rectangular wire: increase in friction
illary molar buccal tube. with impact on anchorage.
220 P. Emile Rossouw

frictional forces should be minimized to obtain Controlling Friction

optimal tooth movement.9
Friction is not likely to be eliminated from ma-
The noted information will be adequately il-
terials, thus the best remedy is to control friction
lustrated throughout all the articles of the Jour-
by achieving two clinical objectives: maximizing
nal and thus provide insight into the complexity
both the efficiency and the reproducibility of the
of friction mechanics and, more importantly,
orthodontic appliances.18 Efficiency refers to the
assist the clinician in the choice of the correct
fraction of force delivered with respect to the
combination of archwires and brackets.
force applied, while reproducibility refers to the
ability of the clinician to activate the orthodontic
Loss of Applied Force appliance so that it behaves in a predictable
manner.18 Therefore, the clinician should be
Orthodontic tooth movement is dependent on
aware of the characteristics of the orthodontic
the ability of the clinician to use controlled me-
appliance that contribute to friction during slid-
chanical forces to stimulate biologic responses
ing mechanics and the extent of the amount of
within the periodontium.10 Investigators have in-
force expected to be lost to friction.22 This will
dicated that applying the proper magnitude of
help allow efficient reproducible results to be
force during orthodontic treatment will result in
achieved. Articles 3 and 5 of this issue especially
optimal tissue response and rapid tooth move-
will provide a guide as to the importance of the
ment.11,12 In a critical review of some of the
correct combination of bracket-archwire inter-
hypotheses relating orthodontic force and tooth
face.
movement,13 it has been concluded that the rate
Contemporary studies of friction in orth-
of tooth movement increases proportionally
odontics have set forth to characterize the mag-
with increases in applied force up to a point,
nitude and the nature of the resistance to sliding
after which additional force produces no appre-
encountered between brackets and arch wires.
ciable increase in tooth movement.
What is actually being measured by these studies
With orthodontic mechanotherapy, a bio-
may be a combination of true frictional resis-
logic tissue response with resultant tooth move-
tance and binding at the archwire interface.4
ment will occur only when the applied forces
When the archwire and the bracket have clear-
adequately overcome the friction at the bracket-
ance, classical friction exists as the only compo-
wire interface.5 This means that the mechano-
nent to the resistance to sliding.23 When clear-
therapy to move a tooth via a bracket relative to
ance disappears and an interference fit occurs
a wire results in friction localized at the bracket-
between the bracket and the arch wires, binding
wire interface that may prevent the attainment
arises as a second component to the resistance to
of an optimal force in the supporting tissues.
sliding superimposed on the classical friction.23
Therefore, orthodontists need to have a quanti-
The hindrance to sliding mechanics with in-
tative assessment of the frictional forces encoun-
creasing archwire dimension and especially the
tered to achieve precise force levels to overcome
combination in an active versus passive appli-
friction and to obtain an optimal biologic re-
ance are well portrayed in the various chapters
sponse for efficient tooth movement.14,15
presented in this issue of Seminars in Orthodontics.
Problems of loss of applied force because of
friction during sliding mechanics have been rec-
ognized for some time.16,17 The portion of the
Experimental Canine Retraction Model
applied force lost because of the resistance to
sliding can range from 12% to 60%.18 If fric- An objective of this edition on friction of Semi-
tional forces are high, the efficiency of the sys- nars in Orthodontics is to provide information
tem is affected, and the treatment time may be with respect to the various methods of testing of
extended or the outcome compromised because friction and, in addition, show how testing meth-
of little or no tooth movement and/or loss of odology has evolved from updated in vitro to in
anchorage.3,5,19,20 In addition, the amount of vivo testing apparatuses. Canine distalization us-
frictional resistance will impact on the moment- ing sliding mechanics is possibly one of the most
to-force ratios of the teeth and, consequently, frequently executed tooth movements. It is thus
their centers of rotation.21 not uncommon to also find canine retraction in
 Friction 221

the latter mode as the choice for testing model cle 6 of this Journal, alluding in particular to this
in vitro experiments. During canine distalization concept.
with sliding mechanics, a significant amount of Therefore, analysis of the parameters affect-
the applied force to move the tooth may be lost ing the frictional resistance, as demonstrated
because of frictional resistance. Minimization of throughout this journal, becomes more mean-
frictional resistance during canine retraction al- ingful when canine distalization via sliding me-
lows most of the applied force to be transferred chanics is simulated experimentally as close to
to the teeth while optimizing orthodontic tooth the clinical circumstances as practically allowed,
movement and decreasing undesirable anchor- and then continued in the oral cavity as shown
age loss. Clinical success thus depends on anal- in Article 7.
ysis of the frictional resistance of brackets and
arch wires, and a simulated canine retraction
model is of paramount importance to optimize Conclusion
all involved parameters. An experimental canine Classically, the gold standard for sliding me-
retraction model utilizing a servomotor capable chanics had been established as couples between
of tipping and uprighting brackets will be used stainless steel arch wires and brackets24,25 Recent
in a quantifiable analysis of the frictional resis- manufacturing techniques of new and innova-
tance for various brackets and arch wires combi- tive orthodontic materials have led to lower fric-
nations. This model of testing is by no means the tional resistance than the same products tested
only acceptable method of testing friction; three in the past.23
different in vitro methods are illustrated (Arti- It is difficult to accurately determine the
cles 3, 4, 5, and 6) as well as a unique in vivo many variables affecting the frictional resistance
method (Article 7). However, the aim of Article in orthodontic sliding mechanics in a clinical
4 is to illustrate the intricacies of the develop- situation.25 This is further complicated by the
ment of a testing apparatus. fact that there are such a variety of orthodontic
In vitro studies of frictional resistance utilizing appliances, as well as a vast variability in the
static straight-line traction (sliding mechanics) biological parameters of patients. It has been
applied to the bracket-wire interface does not suggested that, clinically, these forces, because
simulate the complexity of tooth movements. of frictional resistance, may be overestimated
However, it is still a method often used, and it and are less than what is measured in steady state
will also be demonstrated how this method of laboratory experiments.26
testing can be used to validate manufacturer’s Reduction in the applied force because of
claims regarding low friction modalities in Arti- friction during sliding mechanics has been rec-
cle 3. Straight-line testing, with or without sec- ognized for some time.16-18 More importantly, to
ond-order friction, could at very low velocities of prevent undesired tooth movement and to en-
testing provide some indication of the so-called sure optimal tooth movement, friction must be
“stick-slip” phenomenon, however, a closer sim- understood and controlled. The pertinent liter-
ulation of the clinical situation is possible when ature presented in this edition of Seminars in
Orthodontics will serve to elucidate the general
the actual bracket is tipped to and fro to simu-
trends of frictional resistance encountered in
late tipping and uprighting tooth movements.
orthodontics and what it means clinically.
The varied combinations of tipping and upright-
ing as accomplished during movements such as
canine distalization is portrayed in a subsequent References
article in this issue. Caution should be exercised
1. Farrant SD. An evaluation of different methods of ca-
in interpreting the results of in vitro frictional nine retraction. Br J Orthod 1976;4:5-15.
resistance studies since experimental conditions 2. Nanda R, Ghosh J. Biomechanical considerations in slid-
do not always accurately represent the clinical ing mechanics. In: Nanda R (ed). Biomechanics in Clin-
situation. An evaluation of lubricants (such as ical Orthodontics. Philadelphia, PA, WB Saunders,
1997;pp 188-217.
saliva) and the effect on friction plays an impor- 3. Drescher D, Bourauel C, Schumacher HA. Frictional
tant part in the evaluation of friction modalities forces between bracket and arch wire. Am J Orthod
and will become clear following perusal of Arti- Dentofac Orthop 1989;96:397-404.
222 P. Emile Rossouw

4. Dickson JAS, Jones SP, Davies EH. A comparison of the resistances in stainless steel bracket-wire combinations
frictional characteristics of five initial alignment wires with effects of vertical deflections. Am J Orthod Dento-
and stainless steel brackets at three bracket to wire an- fac Orthop 1996;109:535-542.
gulations: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod 1994;21:15-22. 16. Stoner MM. Force control in clinical practice. Am J
5. Kapila S, Angolkar PD, Duncanson MG, et al. Evaluation Orthod 1960;46:163-168.
of friction between edgewise stainless steel brackets and 17. Paulson RC, Spiedel TM, Isaacson RJ. A laminographic
orthodontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofac study of cuspid retraction versus molar anchorage loss.
Orthop 1990;98:100-109. Angle Orthod 1970;40:20-27.
6. Omana HM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Frictional proper- 18. Kusy RP, Whitley JQ. Friction between different wire-
ties of metal and ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1992; bracket configurations and materials. Seminars Orthod
27:425-432. 1997;3:166-177.
7. Bednar JR, Gruendeman GW, Sandrik JL. A comparative 19. Downing A, McCabe J, Gordon P. A study of frictional
study of frictional forces between orthodontic brackets forces between orthodontic brackets and archwires. Br J
and archwires. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991;100: Orthod 1994;21:349-357.
513-522.
20. Edward GD, Davies EH, Jones SP. The ex vivo effect of
8. Yamaguchi K, Nanda RS, Morimoto N, et al. A study of
ligation technique on the static frictional resistance of
force application, amount of retarding force, and
stainless steel brackets and archwires. Br J Orthod 1995;
bracket width in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dento-
22:145-153.
fac Orthop 1996;109:50-56.
21. Braun S, Bluestein M, Moore K, et al. Friction in per-
9. Nikolai RJ. Bioengineering analysis of orthodontic me-
spective. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999;115:619-
chanics. Philadelphia, PApp 53-56, Lea & Febiger, 1985.
627.
10. DeFranco DJ, Spiller RE, von Fraunhofer JA. Frictional
resistances using Teflon-coated ligatures with various 22. Frank CA, Nikolai RJ. A comparative study of frictional
bracket-archwire combinations. Angle Orthod 1995;65: resistances between orthodontic bracket and arch wire.
63-72. Am J Orthod 1980;78:593-609.
11. Schwartz AM. Tissue changes incidental to orthodontic 23. Articolo LC, Kusy RP. Influence of angulation on the
tooth movement. Int J Orthod 1932;18:331-352. resistance to sliding in fixed appliances. Am J Orthod
12. Storey E, Smith R. Force in orthodontics and its relation Dentofac Orthop 1999;115:39-51.
to tooth movement. Aust J Dent 1952;56:11-18. 24. Kusy RP. Orthodontic biomechanics: vistas from the top
13. Quinn TB, Yoshikawa DK. A reassessment of force mag- of a new century. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2000a;
nitude in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1985;88:252-260. 117:589-591.
14. Angolkar PD, Kapila S, Duncanson MG, Nanda RS. Eval- 25. Kusy RP. Ongoing innovations in biomechanics and ma-
uation of friction between ceramic brackets and orth- terials for the new millennium. Angle Orthod 2000b;70:
odontic wires of four alloys. Am J Orthod Dentofac 366-376.
Orthop 1990;98:499-506. 26. Ho KS, West VC. Friction resistance between edgewise
15. Ogata RH, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG, et al. Frictional brackets and archwires. Aust Orthod J 1991;12:95-99.