This study aims to examine the play between various archwires and bracket systems, exploring potential variations in angle values for specific torque and torque values for a given angle along different bracket systems. Therefore, seven brackets systems were evaluated in conjunction with different stainless steel archwires of varying dimensions (0.016″ × 0.022″, 0.018″ × 0.025″, and 0.019″ × 0.025″). Biomechanical behavior during torque development and transmission was assessed using a six-component force/torque sensor. Torque angles (5–45°) were specified with subsequent torque measurement, and the sequence was reversed by setting the torque (5–30 Nmm) and measuring the angle. A reference measurement with 0 Nmm torque served to evaluate bracket slot play. Bracket play (0 Nmm) during palatal load ranged between 20.06° and 32.50° for 0.016″ × 0.022″ wire, 12.83° and 21.11° for 0.018″ × 0.025″ wire, and 8.39° and 18.73° for 0.019″ × 0.025″ wire. The BioQuick^® bracket exhibited the highest play, while Wave SL^® and Damon^® Q brackets demonstrated the lowest play (p < 0.001). Significant differences (p < 0.001) between the brackets were observed in the torque angles required to achieve torques of 5–20 Nmm. In summary, each bracket system has a different torque transmission, which is of great clinical importance in order to achieve correct torque transmission and avoid complications such as root resorption.

The aim of this study was to investigate the load deflection characteristics of Gummetal^® wires in comparison to nickel–titanium (NiTi) wires. Four different NiTi wires and one Gummetal^® archwire were analyzed in two dimensions (0.014″ (0.36 mm) and 0.016″ × 0.022″ (0.41 mm × 0.56 mm)) and in two different orientations (edgewise and ribbonwise) using three-point bending tests at T = 37 °C. Force–displacement curves were recorded and analyzed. The Gummetal^® 0.014″ wires exhibited higher forces compared to the NiTi wires at 2.0 mm deflection. At 1.0 mm deflection, the opposite pattern was observed. For the 0.016″ × 0.022″ Gummetal^® wires, the forces were within the force interval of the NiTi wires at 2.0 mm deflection. At a deflection of 1.0 mm, no residual force was measurable for the Gummetal^® wires. All the NiTi wires investigated showed hysteresis and a superelastic plateau. However, the Gummetal^® did not form a plateau, but hysteresis was present. An easier plastic deformability compared to the NiTi wires was observed for all the tested geometries.

En-bloc retraction is a common procedure in orthodontic therapy. The application of palatal root torque moments is required to control incisor inclination during retraction, yet studies comparing forces and moments with respect to different mechanics are lacking. This study aimed to investigate the forces and moments during orthodontic en-bloc retraction using a robotic biomechanical simulation system, comparing two distinct approaches: (I) compound technique [stainless steel (SS) combined with nickel-titanium (NiTi)] using industrially pretorqued retraction-torque-archwires (RTA) in combination with NiTi closed coil springs; (II) conventional sliding mechanics using SS archwires with manually applied anterior twist bends in combination with elastic chains. Two dimensions (0.017” × 0.025” and 0.018” × 0.025”) and ten archwires per group were investigated using 0.022” slot self-ligating brackets. Kruskal–Wallis tests with a significance level of α = 0.05 were conducted. The biomechanical simulation showed that en-bloc retraction was characterized by a series of tipping and uprighting movements, differing significantly regarding the examined mechanics. Collateral forces and moments occurred in all groups. Notably, RTA exhibited fewer extrusive forces. The most bodily movement was achieved with the compound technique and the 0.018” × 0.025” RTA. Sliding mechanics exhibited maximum palatal root torque moments of more than 20 Nmm, exceeding recommended values.

(1) Background: After more than a decade since their first description, Inadvertent Tooth Movements (ITMs) remain an adverse effect of orthodontic retainers without a clear etiology. To further investigate the link between ITMs and the mechanical properties of different retainers, the response upon vertical loading was compared in three retainer types (two stainless steel and one nickel–titanium). The influence of different reference teeth was also considered. (2) Methods: Three retainers (R1, R2, R3) were tested in a newly developed biomechanical analysis system (FRANS). They were bonded to 3D-printed models of the lower anterior jaw and vertically displaced up to 0.3 mm. Developing forces and moments were recorded at the center of force. (3) Results: The vertical displacement caused vertical forces (Fz) and labiolingual moments (My) to arise. These were highest in the lateral incisors (up to 2.35 ± 0.59 N and 9.27 ± 5.86 Nmm for R1; 1.69 ± 1.06 N and 7.42 ± 2.65 Nmm for R2; 3.28 ± 1.73 N and 15.91 ± 9.71 Nmm for R3) for all analyzed retainers and with the R3 retainer for all analyzed reference teeth, while the lowest Fz and My values were recorded with the R1 retainer. (4) Conclusions: Displacements of 0.2 mm and larger provided forces and moments which could be sufficient to cause unwanted torque movements, such as ITMs, in all analyzed retainers. Clinicians must be mindful of these risks and perform post-treatment checkups on patients with retainers of all materials.

(1) Background: To further investigate the link between inadvertent tooth movements (ITMs) and mechanical properties of different retainers, the response upon vertical loading was compared in three different retainers (two stainless steel and one nickel-titanium). The influence of different reference teeth was also considered. (2) Methods: Three retainers (R1, R2, R3) were tested in a newly developed biomechanical analysis system (FRANS). They were bonded to 3D-printed models of the lower anterior jaw and vertically displaced up to 0.3mm. Developing forces and moments were recorded at the center of force. (3) Results: The vertical displacement caused vertical forces (Fz) and labiolingual moments (My) to arise. These were highest in the lateral incisors (up to 2.35±0.59N and 9.27±5.86Nmm for R1; 1.69±1.06N and 7.42±2.65Nmm for R2; 3.28±1.73N and 15.91±9.71Nmm for R3) for all analyzed retainers, and with the R3 retainer for all analyzed reference teeth, while the lowest Fz and My values were recorded with the R1 retainer. (4) Conclusions: Displacements of 0.2mm and larger provided forces and moments which could be sufficient to cause unwanted torque movements, such as ITMs in all analyzed retainers. Clinicians must be mindful of these risks and perform posttreatment checkups on patients with retainers of all materials.