Comparison of Force and Moments of T-Loop Using Software and Manual Methods


  • BBD Dental College, Department of Orthodontics, Lucknow, UP, India
  • KVG Dental College, Department of Orthodontics, Karnataka, India
  • BBDCODS, Department of Orthodontics, Lucknow, UP, India
  • Siddhpur Dental College & Hospital Dethali, Department of Orthodontics, Patan, Gujarat, India
  • Lincoln University College, Department of Orthodontics, Selangor, 47301, Malaysia


Background:T loops are most commonly used in space closure in Orthodontics hence the comparative force and moments were determined using both the methods Objectives: To determine and compare moments and forces generated by T loop spring using software and manual spring testing method.

Materials&Methods: Using the Loop software program (dHal, orthodontic loop simulator force and moment and their ratios were calculated at various positions and for various activations for a standard design of T loop (.017 × .025 TMA) given by Kuhlberg&Burstone. The values were then compared with the corresponding values determined by manual spring tester method. Statistical analysis was done using Independent t-test and multivariate regression analysis.

Results: The results showed that the alpha/beta moment ratio was dependant only on the spring position and independent of spring activation. The force system produced by a spring placed 1 mm closer to alpha attachment with 3.5 mm activation provided for bodily movement of anterior segment with M/F ratio of 9.7. This was lesser than that determined by spring tester by 0.7 for same amount of activation and same position.

Conclusion: The comparison of the two methods for designing T loop showed statistically insignificant differences in M/F values. The loop software provided for good simulation of T loop design similar to manual method. The values determined by software and manual methods were highly correlated.


T Loop, Loop Software, Moment, Orthodontic Loops, Segmented Arch Mechanics.

Subject Discipline


Full Text:


Burstone CJ. Rationale of the segmented arch. Am J Orthod 1962;48:805-22.

Burstone CJ. The mechanics of the segmented arch technique. Angle Orthod 1966;36: 99-120.

Burstone CJ. The segmented arch approach to space closure. Am J Orthod 1982;82:361-78.

Burstone CJ. Variable-modulus orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1981;80:1– 16.

Burstone Cl, Koenig HA. Force systems from an ideal arch. Am J Orthod 1974;65:270-89.

Burstone CJ, Koenig HA. Optimizing anterior and canine retraction. Am J Orthod 1976; 70:1-19.

Marcotte MR. Biomechanics in orthodontics. Philadelphia: BC Decker; 1990.

Kuhlberg N, Burstone CJ. T-loop position and anchorage control. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:12-8.

Kuhlberg A. Space closure and anchorage control. Seminars in Orthod 2001;7:42-9.

Halazonetis DJ. Design and test orthodontic loop using your computer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;11(1):346-8.

Martinsa RP, Buschangb BH, Viecillic R, Santos-Pintod A. Curvature Versus VBends in a Group B Titanium T-Loop Spring. Angle Orthodontist 2008;78:51723.

Manhartsberger C, Morton JY, Burstone CJ. Space closure in adult patients using the segmented arch technique. Angle Orthod 1989;59:205–210.

William D, Calllister J. Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2006.p.215–217.

Martins RP, Buschang PH. Optimizing the design of Preactivated titanium T loop springs with loop software. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:161-6.

VieciIli RF. Self-corrective T-loop design for differential space closure. Am J Orthod facial Orthop 2006;12:8-53.

Vibhute PJ, Srivastava SS, Kohli VS. Evaluation of the tear drop and snail loop designs for force system with two different preactivations: Computer loop simulation Program Study. Journal of Indian Orthodontic society.

Siatowski RE. Continuous archwire closing loop design, optimization and verification. Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:393-402.

Marcotte MR. Personal communications to RP Martins. January 30,2003.


  • There are currently no refbacks.