The Implications of Bracket Selection and

Bracket Placement on Finishing Details

Anoop Sondhi, DDS, MS
It has been widely recognized for many years that accurate bracket positioning is of critical importance in the efficient application of biomechanics
and in realizing the full potential of a preadjusted edgewise appliance. Once
it is recognized that bracket placement can have a profound and definite impact
on the expressed first, second, and third order movements, the importance
of accurate bracket placement becomes self-evident. Although brackets can
be placed precisely with direct bonding, it has also been recognized for
many years that indirect bonding gives us greater precision in orientation
and placement for brackets. (Semin Orthod 2003;9:155-164.) 2003 Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved.

he devil, it is said, is in the details. In the

management of a routine orthodontic case,
barring any significant complications imposed
by skeletal discrepancies, missing teeth, etc., it
could fairly be said that a clinician may spend as
much time completing the detailing minutiae
for a patient as was spent in making some of the
major corrections related to crowding, space closure, etc. Frequently, patients become impatient
with the process, particularly if the remaining
treatment involves second and third order
changes in the posterior dentition, which are
usually not visible to them.
Although it is certainly true that some of the
adjustments required to address these details
may not become evident until a certain stage in
treatment, it is also true that many of these
details could be foreseen in the original diagnosis and treatment plan, as well as during bracket
selection and placement---and that is the subject
of this article. Although many authors have written extensively in the literature regarding the
finishing details in orthodontic treatment, adequate attention has not been given to the impact
that proper bracket selection and placement
may have on those finishing details.

Address correspondence to Dr. Anoop Sondhi, 9333 N. Meridian

Street #301, Indianapolis, IN 46260.
2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1073-8746/03/0903-0000$30.00/0
doi:10.1016/sodo.2003.S1073-8746(03)00036-7

Objective Versus Subjective

Assessments
The author is keenly aware of the fact that only
some of the finishing details we will discuss involve variables that are quantifiable and can
therefore be measured objectively. For example,
one could identify that the desirable overbite at
the end of treatment is either 2 mm or 3 mm,
and state ones reasons for that preference. At
the end of treatment, it would also be possible to
measure this variable. We could also make the
statement that, at the end of treatment, there
should be no open spaces in the dental arches,
unless the space is specifically planned for subsequent build-up of a tooth with a restoration.
The presence or absence of spaces can be quantified.
A number of other variables involve a high
degree of subjectivity, partly due to the personal
preferences of patients and clinicians, and partly
due to the difficulty in quantifying them due to
the difficulty in obtaining objective measurements. For example, the degree of mesiodistal
tip on the maxillary anterior teeth can be varied
to a certain degree, with a difference in the
esthetic outcome of the treatment. There may,
indeed, be a range of possible axial inclinations
for the maxillary anterior teeth that would result
in an esthetic appearance that could be pleasing
to the patient or the clinician, without having
any significant impact on the stability of the
result, or the patients long-term dental health

Seminars in Orthodontics, Vol 9, No 3 (September), 2003: pp 155-164

155

156

Anoop Sondhi

and function. On a similar note, clinicians

within the profession may have differing viewpoints on the desirable axial inclinations of the
posterior teeth in the bucco-lingual plane of
space. It is unlikely that most patients would give
the latter a lot of thought, but there would
clearly be a difference in the functional outcome
for the patient. Add to that the difficulty in
measuring the actual bucco-lingual inclination
of a molar, for example, let alone the difficulty
in achieving a consensus on a reference plane to
make such measurements.
The point I am trying to make here is quite
simple. There are certain factors in the finishing
of an orthodontic case that will affect primarily
the esthetics of the finished result. There are
other variables that will have an effect primarily
on the patients long-term dental health and
function. And there is yet another set of variables that will affect both. There are factors that
are quantifiable and, therefore, measurable.
There are other clinical details that are more
subjective and either difficult or impossible to
quantify. And, just to keep it interesting, there is
a significant range of opinions within the profession regarding both the appearance and function of the treatment results. Witness the difference of opinion between a practitioner who
adheres to the Tweed philosophy and another
practitioner who adheres to the Bioprogressive
school of thought. The anterior torque values
vary significantly between these two groups, with
an identifiable difference in the esthetics and
the function of the treatment results. Perhaps
the first real effort to present a structured assessment of the treatment result was made by Andrews.1 His definition of the Six Keys to Normal
Occlusion constituted the first real effort to
tabulate specific variables that could be measured in the finished orthodontic result. Indeed,
that was the foundation of the then nascent
process of developing pretorqued and preangulated appliances. Before that, torque, tip, and
offsets were really not measured---they were essentially in the eyes of the beholder.

well as the personal and philosophical preferences of the individual clinician. However, objective documentation on the efficacy of these
various prescriptions has been lacking in the
literature, and most of the evidence presented
appears to be anecdotal. Further, a clinician
wishing to test a specific prescription is faced
with the daunting task of having to treat a sample group of patients, over a minimum of 2 to 3
years, to develop an appreciation for the clinical
details manifested by the prescription. This approach is, in our opinion, archaic and cumbersome. Consider this: we routinely design supersonic aircraft and space-age vehicles, and
develop them with CAD-CAM systems, without
ever actually putting the first rivet in a piece of
metal. If a supersonic wing can be designed, and
expected to fly the first time with computer
aided graphics, then it should certainly be possible to design orthodontic appliances utilizing
the same principle. It was our goal, therefore, to
construct a virtual dentition (Graphic A),
progress to the development of a virtual occlusion, and then to test the efficacy of our appliance design on the virtual dentition before applying it on the patient. In addition, this gave us
the ability to compare the effects of different
torques, angulations, and prescriptions in a totally objective manner.
The objective of this process was fairly
straightforward. Instead of trying to extrapolate
the sort of subjective fuzziness that one is likely
to encounter in attempting to compare treatment results on patients, where an effort to measure an outcome is hindered by differences in
patient compliance, variations in morphology,
and a host of other uncontrollable factors, we

A Three-Dimensional Graphic Analysis

There are many pretorqued and preangulated
appliance systems available to the orthodontic
practitioner today, and these prescriptions are
based on a foundation of clinical principles, as

Graphic A.

Bracket Selection and Placement

chose to evaluate the impact of certain appliance designs by creating a standardized dentition which would not, by definition, involve having to deal with variations in morphology or
differences due to inconsistencies introduced by
differing levels of patient compliance. In effect,
we could create a standardized virtual dentition,
and then apply standardized virtual appliances
to that dentition to study the outcome of specific
bracket placement, torque, and tip application,
and do so by varying only one factor at a time.
For example, the rest of the dentition and the
appliance could be kept as a constant, and a
single tooth identified for variation of the selected torque in the bracket (Fig 1), so that we
could measure the impact of the one changed
variable on the finished position of the tooth.
Conversely, if we wish to study the impact of a
specific orthodontic prescription on the entire
dental arch, then the dentition could be kept as
a standard, and the entire appliance system
changed, so that the impact on the combined
axial inclinations in all three planes of space
could be studied by rotating the model in each
of those individual planes of space.
In assessing occlusal function and the functional aspects of the occlusion, there continues
to be a significant range of opinions within the
dental profession. On other factors, there is
some degree of unanimity and agreement. For
example, it is widely accepted that balancing
interferences are undesirable during lateral
movements, partly for periodontal reasons and
partly due to concerns about the impact on tem-

Figure 1. Lateral view of a maxillary dental arch, with

the maxillary right first premolar isolated to evaluate
and modify its mesiodistal angulation.

157

poromandibular function. Some authors2 have

identified the undesirable impact of an occlusion dysfunction associated with a significant lateral shift of the mandible. Such functional aspects of occlusion function are usually viewed as
quantifiable but are not always easy to measure.

Selection of Brackets and Tubes

While there is a general acceptance among clinicians that ones choice of brackets and bracket
systems will have an impact on the outcome of
treatment, there does not appear to have been
adequate discussion on the impact of bracket
choice and placement on specific finishing details. This point can be illustrated by studying a
simple finishing detail that frequently requires a
significant amount of treatment time and can
occasionally vex the clinician. As our understanding of occlusion and long-term periodontal
health improved, it became increasingly apparent, especially over the past 20 years, that the
mandibular second molars ought to be aligned
properly within the dental arches at the completion of orthodontic treatment. It is obvious, of
course, that the majority of patients would neither recognize nor be concerned about the
alignment of the second molars at the conclusion of orthodontic treatment. As clinicians,
however, we are certainly aware of the long-term
periodontal and dental health consequences of
poorly positioned and poorly inclined mandibular second molars. Consider, then, that the
clinician has a choice of molar tubes from which
to select the specific appliance he will use on his
patients. It is certainly possible to place a mandibular molar tube with a distal offset, promoted
by some clinicians with the intent of providing a
mesial out rotation on the molar and a presumed improvement in the alignment of the
dental arch. This may harken back to the days
when molar offsets routinely had to be placed in
archwires because nonpreadjusted appliances
did not take variations in morphology into account. However, if we use a mandibular molar
tube with a distal offset and then study the impact on the contact point between the first and
second molars, it quickly becomes apparent
(Figs 2 and 3) that an undesirable distolingual
rotation of mandibular first molar will be expressed. Clinically, this generally requires compensation by putting an offset in the archwire

158

Anoop Sondhi

Figure 2. Graphic illustration of the effect of a distal

offset on the first molar tube in the mandibular arch.
Note the consequent disto-lingual rotation of the first
molar, and the resulting break in the contact point.

(Fig 4), with the net result that the archwire

adjustment became necessary to undo the movement expressed by the offset built into the tubes.
This would argue, then, in favor of a molar tube
that does not have a distal offset (Figs 5 and 6),
since that seems to deliver the desired outcome
in establishing a proper contact relationship between the mandibular first molar and the mandibular second molar. There are many such variables to be considered in the management of
orthodontic treatment, and this is simply an illustration of how the choice of molar tubes
would have an impact on the finished treatment
result, and also on subsequent archwire adjustments.
Before we can leave a discussion regarding
the effects of tube selection on the rotation of
the mandibular first molars, it is appropriate for

Figure 3. Clinical example of the movement depicted graphically in Fig 2.

Figure 4. Archwire adjustment to offset the distolingual rotation imposed by selecting a tube with a
distal offset.

us to recognize that the morphology of the

buccal surface of the mandibular first molar dictates that the mesiodistal position of the tube or
bracket will have an impact of the final position
of the tube. However, our ability to affect the
mesiodistal position of the tube is quite limited.
This limitation is obviously greater with bands,
since the majority of practitioners today use preformed bands with prewelded brackets and
tubes. Since the bands are preformed, our ability
to change the mesiodistal position of the molar
is greatly inhibited. With direct bonding, one
might have slightly greater flexibility, although
the preformed shape of the bracket base generally limits the amount of modification available
to us (Fig 7). With indirect bonding, particularly
if a custom resin base is created, there is a little
more flexibility available to the clinician.

Figure 5. Graphic representation of the contact

point between the mandibular first and second molars if a fist molar tube without a distal offset is used.

Bracket Selection and Placement

Figure 6. Clinical illustration of the contact relationship between the mandibular first and second molars,
achieved by using a molar tube without distal offset.

Bracket Selection and Effect on Third

Order Movements
Since the advent of pretorqued and preangulated brackets, orthodontists have had a wide
array of torques and angulations to select from.
Different clinicians have presented varying
schools of thought, with an equally great variation in treatment outcomes. There are many
pretorqued and preangulated appliance systems
available to the orthodontic practitioner today,
and each prescription is based on a foundation
of clinical principles, as well as the personal
philosophical preferences of the individual clinician. There is considerable variation in the
prescribed torques and angulations between the
Hilgers and the Alexander prescriptions (Ormco
Orthodontics, Orange, CA), for example, not to
mention added differences in mechanics introduced by using the 0.018 slot or the 0.022 slot. It
is interesting to contemplate that one practitioner treating a patient population in a given area
may use an Alexander prescription, with 14 of
torque on the maxillary central incisors, 7
of torque on the lateral incisors, and -3 of
torque on the canines. Another practitioner
treating a similar patient population may use the
Hilgers prescription, with 22 of central incisor torque, 14 of lateral incisor torque, and
7 of canine torque. These differences are sub-

159

stantial, but the differences become applicable

only when full-size arch wires are used---a relatively
uncommon event. Further, the choice of prescriptions may be governed by the practitioners
philosophy on occlusal function and its potential impact on temporomandibular disorders.
When an analysis was made of the available
schools of thought, and the implications of these
opinions on our choice of appliances, I was startled to discover that virtually all existing treatment methodologies recommended that the
torque on the maxillary first and second molars
be identical. This is somewhat surprising, given
the difference in morphology between these two
teeth and the increasing gradient toward the
occlusal surface when viewing the buccal surface
of the upper second molars. Consequently, as
seen in Figure 8, placing the same degree of
torque in the tube on the maxillary second molar as one has on the maxillary first molar will
result in a lesser degree of torque expressed on
the second molar. The undesirable consequence
of this would be a relatively low position of the
lingual cusps, thereby creating possible balancing interferences, and perhaps resulting in inadequate settling of the posterior occlusion. Only
recently have McLaughlin, Bennett, and Trevisi3
recommended that the torque on the maxillary
second molar be four degrees greater than the
first molars. The authors personal opinion is
that the torque should be increased to an even
greater degree for the average second molar.
This is due to the fact that most second molars

Figure 7. The close adaptation of a molar bonding

pad significantly limits our ability to vary the mesiodistal position of the tube with direct bonding. A
slight increase in flexibility can be obtained with indirect bonding, since a custom resin base is formed.

160

Anoop Sondhi

Figure 8. Graphic illustration of the difference in expressed lingual crown torque between the maxillary first
and second molars, when a tube with 10 of lingual crown torque is used on both teeth (A). Lateral view of the
same graphically depicted dental arch, with the lingual cusp of the maxillary second molar extruded in to the
occlusal plane, thereby creating an occlusal interference (B).

erupt with a buccal crown inclination and consequent lingual root torque. To study the degree
of torque required in the molar tube to achieve
an adequate buccal root torque, we studied the
problem with the 3D graphic analysis described
earlier. Figure 9 shows an occlusal view of the
maxillary arch with an appliance system that has
10 of torque on the maxillary first molar and
10 of torque on the maxillary second molar. It
is evident that the second molar is not torqued
adequately, with the consequent and undesirable extension of lingual cusps into the occlusal
plane. Figure 10 is a view of the same dental arch
with the second molar tube designed with 17 of
lingual crown torque. It is the authors conclu-

Figure 9. Occlusal view of a maxillary arch, with a

molar tube that delivers 10 of lingual crown torque
on the maxillary fist molar and the maxillary second
molar. The inadequate lingual crown torque on the
maxillary second molar is evident.

sion that the differential in torque between

the maxillary first and second molars is more
accurately reflected with a 7 differential. Regrettably, no such second molar tubes appear to
be available from any manufacturer at this time.

The Implications of Vertical Placement

on Expressed Torque
In assessing the impact of appliance choice, it is
important for us to remember that it is not the
torque in the bracket that counts, but the expressed torque on the tooth. After all, it is teeth
that we are trying to position, not brackets. Fur-

Figure 10. Occlusal view of the same dental arch demonstrated in Figure 9, with a second molar tube that
delivers 17 of lingual crown torque. Note the improvement in the alignment between the maxillary first and
second molars, as well as elimination of occlusal interferences created by the maxillary second molar.

Bracket Selection and Placement

ther, it behooves the clinician to remember that,

with the new higher resiliency archwires, there is
a certain force diminution as an activation
reaches its final stages, and this diminution in
force may be significant enough for us to consider whether 17 torque in a bracket will be
more fully expressed with a steel archwire, as
opposed to a heat activated Nitinol archwire.
That is, however, outside the scope of this article.
The author would, however, like to delve into
the impact of vertical positioning of the bracket
on expressed torque. It is important for us to
discern the differences introduced by vertical
changes in bracket position on the expressed
torque on different teeth. In drawing a distinction between two teeth, the maxillary canine and
the maxillary central incisor, it becomes immediately apparent that the degree of convexity of
the labial surface has a profound impact on this
variable. The maxillary central incisor has a labial surface that has a mild degree of convexity
(Fig 11A). Therefore, when the bracket level is
changed (Fig 11 B &C), the tooth will change in
its vertical position relative to the archwire, but
there will be only a slight change in the expressed torque. This is precisely why it is possible
to select a specific torque value for the maxillary
incisors, since the vertical placement of the
bracket can be modified for deep overbites and
openbites without introducing a significant compromise in the expressed torque. In contrast,
when similar changes in the vertical position of
the bracket are made on the maxillary canine

Figure 11. Varying vertical positions of the bracket

on a maxillary central incisor, with a consequent
change in the vertical position of the tooth relative to
the archwire. Note that the change in lingual root
torque in minimal.

161

Figure 12. In contrast with Fig 11, a change in the

vertical position of the bracket on the canine results
in a fairly profound change in the expressed lingual
crown torque.

(Fig 12A), the tooth does not merely change its

vertical orientation to the archwire. A rather
profound impact on the expressed torque is immediately apparent (Fig 12 B & C), due to the
effect of the convexity on the labial surface of
this tooth. As a result, we begin to realize that
the choice of torque in the bracket is only of
significance when it is identified in conjunction
with specific vertical placement of the bracket
on the tooth. Figure 13 is an anterior view of the
maxillary dental arch, with bracket positions selected by the author. Attention is drawn to the
vertical position of the maxillary canine, and
also the root angulation in the labio-lingual

Figure 13. Anterior view of the maxillary dental

arch, demonstrating the vertical position and the axial
inclination of the canine with the preferred bracket
position selected by the author.

162

Anoop Sondhi

Figure 14. The effect of changing bracket position

on the canine tooth by 1 mm. Note that the tooth has
extruded and that a noticeable labial root torque has
been realized.

Figure 16. Occlusal view of the maxillary dental

arch, with the canine bracket positioned at the same
vertical level as in Figure 13.

plane of space. In Figure 14, the vertical position

of the canine bracket has been changed by one
millimeter, while maintaining every other variable in the dental arch, and the appliance configuration constant. It is evident that the canine
has extruded, but it is equally evident that there
is a noticeable change in the labio-lingual inclination of that tooth. In Figure 15, the vertical
position of the canine bracket has been modified by 2 mm, and it becomes quickly apparent
that the tooth not only extrudes, but also shows
a rather significant change in the labio-lingual
inclination. Figure 16 is an occlusal view with the
original bracket placement, and Figure 17 is

an occlusal view with the bracket having been

moved gingivally by two millimeters. The impact
of the change in axial inclination, without ever
having changed the torque in the bracket or the
archwire, is noticeable. Figure 18 is a representation of the clinical difficulty this will present,
effectively precluding our ability to establish
contact between the maxillary and mandibular
incisors. This, in fact, is the sort of thing that
sometimes frustrates clinicians who are unable to
understand why the occlusion wont settle.
In understanding the impact of this information in the day-to-day management of our orthodontic patients, one must realize that a 2 mm
difference in the selected vertical position of a
bracket is a rather common event. For example,
if it is the clinicians intent to place a bracket at

Figure 15. Anterior view of the same dental arch as

Fig 14, with the bracket having been repositioned 2
mm gingivally. Note that the tooth does not merely
extrude but also displays a significant increase in labial root torque.

Figure 17. Occlusal view of the same dental arch,

with the bracket repositioned gingivally by 2 mm.
Note the degree of lingual crown torque introduced
as a result of the vertical change, with a consequent
interference of the canine into the occlusion.

Bracket Selection and Placement

Figure 18. Clinical example of a canine with moderate

cusp tip wear and the resulting interference in the occlusion. Note the compensating labial crown torque that
has been placed on the tooth. Reshaping of the canine
is recommended to establish an occlusion, in addition to
preventing excessive crown torque on the tooth.

a height of 4.5 mm from the cusp tip, and the

patient happens to have bruxed enough to flatten the cusp tip by 2 mm, the habit of placing
the bracket at 4.5 mm will create a de facto
interference of the canine in the occlusion. Two
millimeters of cusp tip wear on the canine is
hardly an unusual event, and the impact of this
information has to be carefully evaluated in establishing the finishing details during treatment.
An effort to overcome this by deliberate overtorquing, or stepping out of the tooth, is unlikely to create a favorable result. It would, in
these cases, be appropriate to consider reshaping the lingual surface of the maxillary canine.

The Effect that the Starting Position of

the Tooth Will Have on the Finished
Result
One of the least understood aspects of treatment
with preadjusted appliances is the assumption
that a fixed degree of second and third order
adjustments built into the bracket will be expressed in a uniform manner in the treatment of
orthodontic patients. If a bracket has 17 torque,
for example, it is assumed that that torque will
result in a uniform outcome, regardless of the
starting position of the tooth. This is only tenable if one assumes that the treatment will be
completed with a full sized archwire, ie, a 0.022
x 0.028 archwire in a 0.022 x 0.028 slot, or a
0.018 x 0.025 archwire in a 0.018 x 0.025 slot.
This is rarely the case. The majority of practi-

163

Figure 19. Diagrammatic representation of a lingually inclined maxillary incisor, as seen in a Class II
Division 2 malocclusion (A). The finished position of
this tooth, with a 016 x 0.022 archwire in a 0.018 x
0.025 slot (B).

tioners using the 0.022 x 0.028 slot have indicated that the finishing wires are rarely larger
than a 0.021 x 0.025. The overwhelming majority
of clinicians who use the 0.018 x 0.025 slot use a
0.016 x 0.022 finishing archwire. Figure 19 A
provides a diagrammatic representation of the
effect that this will have. The pronounced lingual inclination of the maxillary incisor crown is
intended to reflect the starting position in a
significant Class II Division 2 malocclusion. Figure 19 B demonstrates the finished position of
this tooth if a 0.016 x 0.022 archwire is used in a
0.018 x 0.025 slot. Figure 20 demonstrates the
starting and finished position of the same tooth
if a 0.018 x 0.025 archwire is used. Figure 21
shows the effect, utilizing the same bracket and
a 0.016 x 0.022 archwire, in a labially inclined

Figure 20. The starting and finished position of the

same tooth as in Figure 19, with a 0.018 x 0.025
archwire in a 0.018 x 0.025 slot.

164

Anoop Sondhi

incisor, such as that seen in a Class II Division 1

malocclusion. As is evident in Figure 22, the
finished position will be the same if a 0.018 x
0.025 archwire is used. However, the finished
position will be slightly different if a 0.016 x
0.022 archwire is utilized, due to the fact that the
archwire will not engage in the third order until
the tooth has been retracted to a certain degree.
This would, then, argue in favor of a clinician
utilizing a higher torqued central incisor bracket
versus a central incisor bracket with low lingual
root torque. It is important to remember that
the higher torque on the maxillary anterior
teeth is also desirable to preclude the deleterious consequences of an anterior interference in
the occlusion. A bracket with 12 of torque, for
example, is hardly likely to have adequate activation to permit an adequate result for the average Class II Division 2 case. It is precisely these
kinds of factors that must be taken into account
in the choice of brackets and bracket systems
when planning the treatment of patients, due to
the profound impact that these variables will have
on the finishing details in the treatment result.

Summary and Conclusions

Given the number of different variables in all
three planes of space that would have an impact
on the finished orthodontic treatment result, it
is obvious that an individual discussion of each
of these factors would require a textbook, not a
journal article. Our intent with this introduction
to that thought process is to inform clinicians

Figure 22. Graphic illustration of the difference in

the finished position of the tooth if a 0.018 x 0.025
archwire is used.

about the impact that a three-dimensional

graphic analysis can have on the way we think
about finishing details and, specifically, to understand the impact of this information in our
choice of brackets, bracket systems, and specific
orthodontic prescriptions. It is also a preliminary demonstration that the choice of a prescription itself is not the only decision that
would determine the clinical outcome, due to
the significant differences further introduced by
variations in mesiodistal and vertical positioning
of the brackets. It would be appropriate for us,
then, to be cognizant of the need for analyzing
bracket placement and choice of prescriptions
in unison. A prescription offered without specific guidelines on bracket placement would
appear to have limited value. Guidelines for specific bracket placement without an understanding of the implied effect on expressed first, second, and third order movements would be
equally limited in value. It is the intent of this
article to alert the orthodontic clinician to the
importance of considering these factors in selecting bracket systems, prescriptions, and
bracket placement for given cases.

References

Figure 21. Graphic illustration utilizing the same

bracket and a 0.016 x 0.022 archwire in a labiallyinclined incisor. Since the archwire will not block the
initial lingual tipping during a retraction, the complete 22 of torque will not be expressed.

1. Andrews L. Six keys to normal occlusion. American

J Orthod 1972;62:296-309.
2. McNamara JA, Seligman DA, Okeson JP. The relationship
of occlusal factors and orthodontic treatment to temporomandibular disorders, in Temporomandibular Disorders
and Related Pain Conditions, Progress in Pain Research
and Management, Vol. 4, Seattle, WA: IASP Press, 1995.
3. McLaughlin RP, Bennett JC, Trevisi HJ. Systemized
Orthodontic Treatment Mechanics. Mosby, 2001.