Orthodontic tooth movement results from application of forces to teeth. Elastics in orthodontics have been used both intra-orally and extra- orally to a great effect. Their use, combined with good patient co-operation provides the clinician with the ability to correct both anteroposterior and vertical discrepancies. Force decay over a period of time is a major problem in the clinical usage of latex elastics and synthetic elastomers. This loss of force makes it difficult for the clinician to determine the actual force transmitted to the dentition. It's the intent of the clinician to maintain optimal force values over desired period of time. The majority of the orthodontic elastics on the market are latex elastics. Since the early 1990s, synthetic products have been offered in the market for latex-sensitive patients and are sold as nonlatex elastics. There is limited information on the risk that latex elastics may pose to patients. Some have estimated that 0.12-6% of the general population and 6.2% of dental professionals have hypersensitivity to latex protein. There are some reported cases of adverse reactions to latex in the orthodontic population but these are very limited to date. Although the risk is not yet clear, it would still be inadvisable to prescribe latex elastics to a patient with a known latex allergy. To compare the in-vitro performance of latex and non latex elastics.Samples of 0.25 inch, latex and non latex elastics (light, medium, heavy elastics) were obtained from three manufacturers (Forestadent, GAC, Glenroe) and a sample size of ten elastics per group was tested. The properties tested included cross sectional area, internal diameter, initial force generated by the elastics, breaking force and the force relaxation for the different types of elastics. Force relaxation testing involved stretching the elastics to three times marketed internal diameter (19.05 mm) and measuring force level at intervals over a period of 48 hours. The data were analyzed with student independent - t test, analysis of variance and the Tukey - HSD test at p <0.05 level of significance.Non latex elastics had greater cross sectional area than latex elastics in all types of elastics. Forestadent heavy elastics had grater cross sectional area than GAC and Glenroe. There was no statistically significant difference in the internal diameter in between all type of elastics. Forestadent non latex elastics had greater breaking force compared to GAC and Glenroe elastics. Forces generated by the elastics decreased over 48 hours to an average load approximating 65-75% of the manufacturer's values. Force degradation was greater in non latex elastics compared to latex elastics.The results of the study demonstrated that the clinical choice of elastics should be based on the patient's medical history and the specific mechanical properties of the type of elastic. How to cite the article: Kamisetty SK, Nimagadda C, Begam MP, Nalamotu R, Srivastav T, Shwetha GS. Elasticity in Elastics-An in-vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(2):96-105.