Degradation and deformation of latex and non-latex orthodontic elastics


Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine


ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480





Volume / Issue / page

Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 33 , ISSUE 1 (May 2017) > List of articles

Degradation and deformation of latex and non-latex orthodontic elastics

Pedro Lima Emmerich Oliveira * / Mírian Aiko Nakane Matsumoto / Gisele Faria / Fábio Lourenço Romano

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 64-72, DOI:

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 30-July-2021



Background: Intermaxillary elastics are widely used in corrective orthodontic treatment particularly for the interdigitation of buccal segments and the correction of the midline. However, latex has been known to cause allergy, which may restrict elastic use. As alternative materials, non-latex elastics are available. However, clinicians must be aware of their mechanical properties, especially those of deformation and force degradation that affect these materials over time.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare force degradation and deformation of 3 /16” non-latex and latex elastics supplied by several manufacturers.

Materials and methods: Special acrylic plates were fabricated to incorporate orthodontic brackets to which elastics were attached and stretched to a distance of approximately 20 mm. The internal diameter and force magnitude of each elastic was measured at time intervals of 0, 24, 72 and 504 hours. The samples were stored in artificial saliva at room temperature during the entire experimental period.

Results: Latex elastics showed smaller and more uniform deformation than the non-latex elastics. The non-latex elastics showed greater degradation at all time intervals (p < 0.001). The Morelli brand delivered greater force than other brands for both the latex and non-latex elastics at all time intervals (p < 0.05). The G&H latex elastics showed greater force degradation in comparison with the other brands (p < 0.05). The evaluation of the Dentaurum and Orthopli non-latex elastics showed greater degradation (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: The non-latex elastics showed greater force degradation than the latex elastics. Of the latex elastics, G&H showed greater force degradation, and for the non-latex elastics, those made by Dentaurum and Orthopli degraded most.

Content not available PDF Share



1. Case CS. Supplementary retaining forces as auxiliaries to the labial retaining appliance. Dental Cosmos 1907;49:23-31.

2. Rogers AP. Henry Albert Baker. Am J Orthod 1958;44:940-2.

3. Angle EH. Classification of malocclusion. Dental Cosmos 1899;41:248-64.

4. Andreasen GF, Bishara S. Comparison of alastik chains with elastics involved with intra-arch molar to molar forces. Angle Orthod 1970;40:151-8.

5. Bishara SE, Andreasen GF. A comparison of time related forces between plastic alastiks and latex elastics. Angle Orthod 1970;40:319-28.

6. Alenius H, Turjanmaa K, Palosuo T. Natural rubber latex allergy. Occup Environ Med 2002;59:419-24.

7. Gawkrodger DJ. Investigation of reactions to dental materials. Br J Dermatol 2005;153:479-85.

8. Nettis E, Colanardi MC, Ferrannini A, Tursi A. Reported latex allergy in dental patients. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;93:144-8.

9. Kean T, McNally M. Latex hypersensitivity: A closer look at considerations for dentistry. J Can Dent Assoc 2009;75:279-82.

10. Pollart SM, Warniment C, Mori T. Latex allergy Am Fam Physician 2009;80:1413-8.

11. Hwang CJ, Cha JY. Mechanical and biological comparison of latex and silicone rubber bands. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:379-86.

12. Kersey ML, Glover K, Heo G, Raboud D, Major PW. An in vitro comparison of 4 brands of nonlatex orthodontic elastics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:401-7.

13. Kersey ML, Glover KE, Heo G, Raboud D, Major PW. A comparison of dynamic and static testing of latex and nonlatex orthodontic elastics. Angle Orthod 2003;73:181-6.

14. Russell KA, Milne AD, Khanna RA, Lee JM. In vitro assessment of the mechanical properties of latex and non-latex orthodontic elastics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;120:36-44.

15. Aljhani AS, Aldrees AM. The effect of static and dynamic testing on orthodontic latex and non-latex elastics. Orthodontic Waves 2010;69:117-22.

16. López N, Vicente A, Bravo LA, Calvo JL, Canteras M. In vitro study of force decay of latex and non-latex orthodontic elastics. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:202-7.

17. Wang T, Zhou G, Tan X, Dong Y. Evaluation of force degradation characteristics of orthodontic latex elastics in vitro and in vivo. Angle Orthod 2007;77:688-93.

18. Kanchana P, Godfrey K. Calibration of force extension and force degradation characteristics of orthodontic latex elastics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:280-7.

19. Fernandes DJ, Fernandes GM, Artese F, Elias CN, Mendes AM. Force extension relaxation of medium force orthodontic latex elastics. Angle Orthod 2011;81:812-9.

20. Gioka C, Zinelis S, Eliades T, Eliades G. Orthodontic latex elastics: a force relaxation study. Angle Orthod 2006;76:475-9.

21. Wong AK. Orthodontic elastic materials. Angle Orthod 1976;46:196-205.

22. Barrie WJ, Spence JA. Elastics: their properties and clinical applications in orthodontic fixed appliance therapy. Br J Orthod 1974;1:167-71.

23. Bell WR. A study of applied force as related to the use of elastics and coil springs. Angle Orthod 1951;21:151-4.

24. Pithon MM, Mendes JL, da Silva CA, Lacerda dos Santos R, Coqueiro RD. Force decay of latex and non-latex intermaxillary elastics: a clinical study. Eur J Orthod 2016;38:39-43.