Analysis of moment~force ratios in the mechanics of

tooth movement
Robert P. Kusy, Ph.D.,* and J. F. Camilla Tulloch, B.D.S.**
Chapel Hill, N.C.

Orthodontic tooth movement is analyzed by means of the center of rotation model and the concept
of moment/force ratios. Several equivalent force systems are considered at both the bracket and
the center of resistance of the tooth. When moment/force ratios are evaluated at the bracket, the
laws of physics appear to be suspended: inconsistencies occurring as single forces applied at
different points claim equivalent results and pure translational movements purport to be nonzero
moment/force ratios. These paradoxes can be reconciled only if the moment/force ratios are analyzed
at the center of resistance of the tooth. Here, all of the moments applied to the tooth by the force
system are included in the analysis. Only when the force system is evaluated around the center of
resistance of the tooth is the concept of moment/force ratios consistently correct. (AM J ORTHOD
DENTOFAC ORTHOP 90: 127-131, 1986.)

Key words: Center of resistance, center of rotation, couple, force, mechanics, moment, tooth movement

A m o n g the approaches used to explain the
motion of a tooth, the center of rotation model appears
to be the most popular. 1-5 In this model the center of
resistance replaces the center of gravity and tooth mo-
tion is described in terms of rotation relative to this
point. Bodily movement or translation can be consid-
ered to occur when the center of rotation moves to a
point infinitely distant from the center of resistance.
Pure rotation occurs when the center of rotation coin-
cides with the center of resistance. All other centers of
rotation result from combinations of translation and ro-
tation, and are commonly referred to as either tipping
or torquing procedures.
How a tooth moves is dependent on two components
of the force system. The first component, the force,
translates the tooth parallel to the line of force. The
second, the moment, rotates the tooth around the center
of resistance in either a clockwise or counterclockwise
direction. The force system, together with specific bi-
ologic variables within the support system, ultimately
determine the type and amount of tooth movement.
Traditionally, the center of rotation model and the
associated translational and rotational motions of the
tooth have been described in terms of the moment/force
(M/F) ratios at the bracket. 6-8 Although most ortho-
dontic force systems are applied at the crown of the
tooth and analysis of force systems at this point might
first appear logical, moment/force ratios at the bracket
From the Department of Orthodontics/Dental Research Center, University of
North Carolina.
*Associate Professor.
**Assistant Professor.
do not fully describe the reaction of the tooth to the
force system. Only by considering the moment/force
ratios at the center of resistance can the center of ro-
tation model and the concept of moment/force ratios
be reconciled. Two specific examples and the schematic
drawing of moment/force ratios at the center of resis-
tance illustrate this fact as well as the practical diffi-
culties of maintaining bodily translation and achieving
pure rotation.
THE GENERAL SITUATION: A FORCE AND A
COUPLE
In a conventional fixed appliance, a bracket may be
subjected to both a force and a couple. As a result the
tooth may experience not only a force but also two
moments. That two moments exist can be seen if an
equivalent force system is determined (Fig. 1).* One
moment is generated by the fit of the wire in the bracket
and is referred to as the couple. The other moment is
produced by the force (F) applied at the bracket, which
has been positioned at a fixed distance (D) from the
center of resistance (CR) of the tooth. If the moment
of the couple (M) equals but opposes the moment of
the force (Mr = F x D), then the tooth will experience
only a force acting through the center of resistance. The
tooth will translate (that is, rotate about a point at in-
*Because a two-dimensional tooth model is assumed, only forces that act in
a buccolingual-mesiodistal plane will be analyzed. Thereby, the points of force
application (for example, at a bracket) will be projected until they contact the
axis of the tooth. Moreover, axial forces that cause extrusion or intrusion, or
small moments that tend to rotate a tooth in the occlusal plane (that is, in its
socket) will be ignored.

127
128 Kusy and Tulloch Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.
August 1986

300~g/-'~~ 1300~' 3()Og1 ~ g-mm

m /// //
D
M ~ ~ 3°°g ~'~ (3~ j
s C
% MF= 2,000
O-ram
A
Fig. 1. Construction of equivalent force systems about the
II --1/2,ooo
center of resistance (CR) of a tooth. Whether or not a tooth 2000" m m 2°0'/I 12°'g"
" 2000
translates, rotates, or does both (that is, so-called "tipping" or
"torquing") depends on the ratio of the net moment to the net A B C
force. In all figures the dashed outlines highlight the presence
of a couple whose moment equals Mr. ~MF 2,400

0•_•
=
g-mm

o ~ m 30~//-~_ 1300g/ 300g I "~/2,4(30

finity). However, if the moment due to the force and
the moment of the couple are not equal, then the tooth
will not only translate but will also rotate about the A B C
center of resistance in either a clockwise or counter-
clockwise direction depending on the relative magni- ,MF= 2,600
tudes and sense of the two moments.
oo

SPECIAL SITUATION h SINGLE FORCE

SYSTEM (M = 0)
What tooth movement can be expected if the couple
(M) is equal to zero? This situation may occur if a
single force is applied by means of a finger spring on
a removable appliance. According to the current ap-
proach, the M/F ratio at the point of force application
would equal zero; the distance from the center of ro-
tation to the center of resistance would approach zero
and pure rotation might be expected. However, the
equivalent force systems of row I of Fig. 2 demon-
strate that a single force applied at the crown of the
tooth can never produce pure rotation about the center
of resistance because the force applied at a distance
from the center of resistance itself produces a moment
having a magnitude of F x D. Moreover, if the mag-
nitude of the force changes, the point of load application
moves, or the line of action shifts, then the magnitude
of F and/or Mf will change (rows II to IV of Fig. 2,
respectively). The right-hand frame of each row shows
that, when properly analyzed at the CR, the forces
and/or the moments of the forces are different. There-
fore, although the M/F ratio at the bracket equals zero
in each case, the translational and rotational effects are
different.
SPECIAL SITUATION Ih THE MOMENT OF THE
COUPLE EQUALS THE MOMENT OF THE
FORCE (M = M,)
As the moment of the couple approximates the mag-
nitude of the moment due to the force, the relationship
o, ,,oo
~ ° 150g
A .,~ B C
Fig. 2. Equivalent force systems in which all of the M/F ratios
equal zero. Row/--Baseline case when a single 300 g force
is applied 10 mm from the CR, row //--when only the force
magnitude is changed to 200 g, row///--when only the point of
force application is changed to 8 mm, and row ~V--when only
the direction of the line of action of the force is changed 30 ° . In
each case a different tipping moment results about the CR from
the application of the single force.
among the force system, tooth anatomy, and/or alveolar
bone takes on special importance. In the literature a
M/F = 10 is often associated with bodily movement. 7'8
This can only be true if the line of action of the force
is applied at a distance of 10 mm from the center of
resistance of the tooth. By definition, pure translation
can occur only if a force acts through the center of
resistance and no net moment exists (Fig. 3, row I in
which M = Mr). However, as the three equivalent
force systems at the brackets show (Fig. 3, column A),
there can be a net moment if the M/F ratio does not
equal the distance from the CR to the point of force
application. Thus, if the anatomy of the tooth 9 or the
amount of alveolar bone surrounding a tooth change
(as would be the case for a patient who has periodontal
disease or has experienced a traumatic injury), then the
center of resistance will shift along the long axis of the
tooth. As rows II and III of Fig. 3 show, the Mf increases
in each case, although the M/F ratio at the bracket
Volume 90 Moment~force ratios in mechanics of tooth movement 129
Number 2

MF ----3,000
[ g-mm
r\ (5 L.--., (5
/ ~'R 300g/ .~/300g) 300g/ "-~"-.,3,000
T l+" r
// /

3,000g-mm 3,000g-mm 3,000g-ram

A B C D

~3oo~
3,000 g-mm 3,000 g-mm 3,000 g-mm
A B C D
M v = 3,600
j~33~0 g-ram

m V t ] g-ram g-ram

Oog~ ~3oo~.~Y
3,000 g-mm 3,000 g-mm 3,000 g-mm
A B C D

Fig. 3. Equivalent force systems in which a single force is opposed by a pair of equal, opposite, and
parallel forces--that is, a countervailing couple. R o w / - - B a s e l i n e case when a 300 g force is applied
10 mm from the CR along with a 3,000 g-mm countervailing couple, r o w / / - - w h e n only the anatomy
of the tooth is lengthened so that the CR moves 1 mm apically, and row ill--when only the amount
of the alveolar bone is reduced so that the CR moves 2 mm apicaily. Although in each case the force
and couple at the bracket are equivalent, what the tooth experiences at the center of resistance is
different. For M = Mf to be maintained, either M must increase or F must decrease. Ultimately, anatomic
and physiologic considerations will dictate which course of action is appropriate.

equals ten in each situation. For bodily tooth movement
to occur, a longer tooth root (Fig. 3, row II) requires
that a greater M be applied to counteract the larger Mr;
whereas, the loss of alveolar bone (row III) suggests
that a smaller F be applied to reduce the value of Mr.
Thus, although by the conventional approach the M/F
ratios at the bracket are the same, Fig. 3 illustrates that
the tooth motion will be different because the values
of Mf are different.
THE INADEQUACIES OF THE PRESENT APPROACH
The two special situations graphically illustrate the
inadequacies of the present concept of moment/force
ratios at the bracket--namely, that all of the moments
are not considered when the force system is interpreted
via the couple and the force at the bracket. Thus, al-
though the force systems at the bracket and at the center
of resistance are equivalent, the net M/F ratios are not
equivalent because the reference points are different.
Because a couple applied anywhere on a tooth must by
definition rotate a tooth about its center of resistance,
the only logical point of reference is the center of re-
sistance. If the concept of M/F ratios is carried out
anywhere else, a portion, if not all, of the moment due
to the force could be lost in the analysis, which would
inevitably lead to erroneous interpretations.
THE ONLY GENERAL APPROACH FOR
MOMENT/FORCE RATIOS
To reconcile these apparent inconsistencies, the
concept of the M/F ratios at the center of resistance ~°
along with the geometry of the tooth must be included
in the theory of tooth mechanics. As a basis for fur-
ther discussion, one approach might be to plot the mo-
ment/force ratios versus the centers of rotation posi-
tions. 6'u-~3 Using the tooth model shown in Fig. 4, the
distance from the applied force to the center of resis-
tance must be estimated. For anterior teeth CR equals
one third to one half of the root length as measured
apically from the alveolar crest12; for posterior teeth 0.3
130 Kusy and Tulloch
+co
4,~- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
g (3)
g
g
2 -CR
.g_ ~ generally referred to as a "ratio," NM/NF is not a pure
9 number, but rather a proportion that must be defined in
1 Subject to this interpretation, all clinical situations
i +F
-----i .......
&
-oo +co D 0
NM/NF ratio at center of resistance (mm)
Fig. 4. Schematic illustration showing how the ratio of the coun-
tervailing couple (M) and the applied force at the bracket (F)
influence the motion of a tooth. By estimating the distance (D)
from the intersection of the line of action of the force and the
long axis of a tooth (usually the bracket) to the center of resis-
tance (CR), the net moment (NM) to net force (NF) ratio at the
center of resistance can be calculated (X axis), and the mag-
nitude and sense of tipping can be deduced from the corre-
sponding distance from the center of rotation to the center of
resistance (Y axis). Those portions of the curves from points 1
to 4 and from points 5 to 9 are the norm, never attaining pure
rotation about the center of resistance nor maintaining pure
translation about an infinite radius. In this plot both the absence
of a countervailing moment (NM/NF = D, that is, Special Sit-
uation I) and the annihilation of the moment of the applied force
at the center of resistance by the countervailing couple
(NM/NF = 0, that is, Special Situation II) yield results that are
consistent with the laws of mechanics.
to 0.4 of the distance from the alveolar crest to the apex
of the roots is typical. 14 By establishing D as the dis-
tance from the intersection of the line of action of the
force and the long axis of a tooth (usually the bracket)
to the CR, the ratio of the net moment to the net force
may be calculated. This is accomplished by first sum-
ming the moments due to forces or couples (the rota-
tional effect) and then dividing by the net force (the
translational effect)--that is,
Net
M m°ment
force
- - - - ~NM
NF] -N [M
e Ft
Substituting the moment of the force, Me = F x D,
_ [M +_FFXD]
Simplifying,
Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.
August 1986
44
Note that, unlike the earlier convention in which the
first term of equation 3 is the conventional moment/
force ratio at the bracket, equation 3 states that D will
change the NM/NF ratio too, depending on the mag-
nitude and sense of the force and couple. Although
units of distance. 7
may be defined if the NM/NF ratio at the center of
resistance is plotted against the distance from the cen-
I I
ter of rotation to the center of resistance (Fig. 4).
i
i When the countervailing couple (M) equals zero,
].... t 5
-oo
NM/NF = D (equation 3) and the center of rotation
may be in close proximity to, but apically displaced
from, the CR (point 1, Fig. 4). Only a larger tooth,
placement of a bracket more incisally, loss of alveolar
bone, or a moment of opposite sense (Fig. 4) will
produce more positive ratios of NM/NF and move the
center of rotation closer to the center of resistance.
When a relatively small countervailing couple is applied
as shown, uncontrolled tipping (or "simple tipping")
(point 1) gives way to controlled tipping (or just "tip-
ping") about the midpoint between the CR and the tooth
apex (point 2) or about the apex (point 3). When
M = Mr, the countervailing couple equals but opposes
the moment due to the force so that NM/NF = 0 (equa-
tion 1) and the center of rotation approaches infinity. 15
As the diagram in Fig. 4 shows, this may be approached
apically (point 4) or incisally (point 5), depending on
whether or not the couple is slightly less than or greater
than the moment about the CR due to the applied force.
In practice, maintaining this balance is nearly impos-
sible because both the force activation characteristics
of today's arch wires and the physiologic response of
the surrounding tissue change with time (see also ref-
erence 15). As the magnitude of the countervailing
couple increases so that M/Me > 1, the NM/NF be-
comes increasingly negative. Now the center of rotation
progressively migrates from a value near infinity (point
5), to the incisal edge (point 6), to the cementum-
enamel junction (point 7), to the center of gravity (point
8 at CG), and asymptotically approaches the center of
(1) resistance (pointg). Because not only a couple but also
a force still comprise this force system, pure rotation
can never occur about the CR, regardless of how large
NM/NF may become. Indeed, even if a couple alone
could be applied initially, pure rotation would not be
(2)
maintained because of the changing relationship of the
tooth to the surrounding tissue and the bracket to the
arch wire.
Volume 90
Number 2
SUMMARY
Force systems at the center of resistance have been
described for the conventional fixed appliance and for
two special clinical situations in which force systems
are delivered at the tooth c r o w n - - a single lateral force
and a lateral force complemented by a special coun-
tervailing couple. Although the force systems that result
at the bracket and at the center of resistance are equiv-
alent, the concept of moment/force ratios at the bracket
fosters ambiguities that can only be reconciled by con-
sidering the net moment/net force ratios at the center
of resistance. After all, it is neither the bracket nor the
tooth that must be moved about the bracket, but rather
the tooth-bracket assembly that must be moved about
its center of resistance.
This research was supported in part by NIH Grant
DE-02668.
REFERENCES
1. Goldstein H: Classical mechanics, vol 7. Reading, Mass., 1970,
Addison:Wesley, pp 93-124.
2. Frankel VH, Burstein AH, Brooks DB: Biomechanics of internal
derangements of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg 53A: 945-962,
1971.
3. Hurd JJ, Nikolai RJ: Centers of rotation for combined vertical
and transverse tooth movements. AM J ORTHOD 701 551-558,
1976.
4. Panjabi MM: Centers and angles of rotation of body joints: A
study of errors and optimization. J Biomech 12- 911-920, 1979.
5. Hocevar RA: Understanding, planning, and managing tooth
movement: Orthodontic force system theory. AM J ORTHOD80"
457-477, 1981.
Moment~forCe ratios in mechanics o f tooth movement 131
6. Christiansen RL, Burstone CJ: Centers of rotation within the
periodontal space. AM J ORTHOD 55: 353-369, 1969.
7. Smith RJ, Burstone CJ: Mechanics of tooth movement. AM J
ORTHOD 85: 294-307, 1984.
8. Burstone CJ: Appl!cation of bioengineering io clinical ortho-
dontics. In Graber TM, Swain BF (editors): Current orthodontic
concepts and techniques, ed 2. Philadelphia, 1975, W. B. Saun-
ders Company, pp 230,258.
9. Pryputniewicz RJ, Burstone C J: The effect of time an d force
magnitude on orthodontic tooth movement. J Dent Res 58: 1754-
1764, 1979.
10. Nikolai RJ: Analytical mechanics and analysis of orthodontic
tooth movements. AM J ORTHOD82: 164-166, 1982.
11. Nicolai RJ: Periodontal ligament reaction and displacements of
a maxillary central incisor subjected to transverse crown loading.
J Biomech 7: 93-99, 1974.
12. Burstone CJ, Pryputniewicz RJ: Holographic determination of
centers of rotation produced by orthodontic forces. AM J ORTHOD
77: 396-409, 1980.
13. Nikolai RJ: Bioengineering analysis of orthodontic mechanics.
Philadelphia, 1985; Lea & Febiger, pp 146-193.
14. Burstone CJ, Pryputniewicz RJ, Weeks R: Centers of resistance
of the human mandibular molar. J Dent Res 60:515, 1981 (Abstr
822).
15. Haack DC, Weinstein S: Geometry and mechanics as related to
tooth movement studied by means of two-dimensional model. J
Am Dent Assoc 66: 157-164, 1963.
Reprint requests to:
Dr. Robert P. Kusy
Department of Orthodontics, Dental Research Center
University of North Carolina
Dental Research Building 210H
Chapel Hill, NC 27514