A study was conducted to retest the hypothesis of “differential force” as stated by Begg and to determine if this concept would apply to the edgewise bracket. Two recognized limitations in this study were that neither the tipping of teeth nor the inherent friction between the edgewise bracket and archwire was measured. An acrylic jig or matrix was constructed to fit over the central incisors. By placing a metal bar in the matrix with a point indented into the metal bar, a reference point for measuring distances to the canine and molars was established. The factor of friction should be mentioned relative to this investigation because in sliding an edgewise bracket over an arch wire, varying degrees of friction impede tooth movement. Friction is relevant in making an absolute comparison between conclusions of the differential force concept found in this study and the differential force concept stated by Begg. The conclusions of this investigation are as follows: (1) When using the Siamese edgewise bracket with continuous arch wires, it does not always follow that with 100 to 150 Gm. of applied force only the canine and not the buccal segment or anchor unit will move. Conversely, it does not always follow that with 400 to 500 Gm. of applied force only the buccal segment or anchor unit will move forward and the canine will not move. (2) Using the sliding mechanics of this study, the percentage of greater rates of tooth movement happening coincident with greater forces was found to be 0.857. (3) When the edgewise bracket and sliding mechanics were used, the curves showed that, in general, reciprocal forces cause reciprocal tooth movement with varying and relative rates of space closure. (4) Subjectively, no relationship was found between pain and increased forces; that is, pain in this study was found just as often on the side with 100 to 150 Gm. of applied force as on the side with 400 to 500 Gm. of applied force. This is not to say that there is not more tissue damage found with the use of heavier forces.