Two distalization methods compared in a novel patient-specific finite element analysis

dc.contributor.authorAmmoury, Makram J.
dc.contributor.authorMustapha, Samir A.
dc.contributor.authorDechow, Paul C.
dc.contributor.authorGhafari, Joseph George
dc.contributor.departmentDentofacial Medicine
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Mechanical Engineering
dc.contributor.departmentDivision of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
dc.contributor.facultyFaculty of Medicine (FM)
dc.contributor.facultyMaroun Semaan Faculty of Engineering and Architecture (MSFEA)
dc.contributor.institutionAmerican University of Beirut
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-24T12:21:35Z
dc.date.available2025-01-24T12:21:35Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.description.abstractIntroduction: Orthodontic mini-implants aid in the correction of distocclusions via direct anchorage (pull from mini-implant to teeth) and indirect anchorage (teeth pulled against other teeth anchored by the mini-implant). The aim of this study was to compare stress levels on the periodontal ligament (PDL) of maxillary buccal teeth in direct and indirect distalization against orthodontic mini-implants and accounting for individual variation in maxillary anatomy and biomechanical characteristics of the compact bone. Methods: A 3D model of the maxilla containing the different components (teeth, PDL, trabecular and cortical bones) was generated from a computed tomographic scan. Cortical bone was divided into several areas according to previously defined zones. Bone stiffness and thickness data, obtained from 11 and 12 cadavers, respectively, were incorporated into the initial model to simulate the individual cortical bone variation at the different locations. Subsequently, a finite element analysis was used to simulate the distalization modalities. Results: Stresses at the buccal, palatal, mesial, and distal surfaces were significantly different between adjacent teeth under stiffness but not thickness variation. In both distalization modalities, low or no significant correlations were found between stress values and corresponding cortical bone thicknesses. High significant and inverted correlations were observed at the first molar between stress amounts and cortical bone stiffness (direct modality: −0.68 < r < −0.72; indirect modality: −0.80 < r < −0.82; P <0.05). Conclusions: With the use of a novel finite element approach that integrated human data on variations in bone properties, findings suggested that cortical bone stiffness may influence tooth movement more than bone thickness. Significant clinical implications could be related to these findings. © 2019 American Association of Orthodontists
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.09.017
dc.identifier.eid2-s2.0-85071514875
dc.identifier.pmid31474262
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10938/34476
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherMosby Inc.
dc.relation.ispartofAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
dc.sourceScopus
dc.subjectBiomechanical phenomena
dc.subjectBone screws
dc.subjectComputer simulation
dc.subjectDental implants
dc.subjectDental stress analysis
dc.subjectFinite element analysis
dc.subjectHumans
dc.subjectImaging, three-dimensional
dc.subjectMaxilla
dc.subjectModels, anatomic
dc.subjectMolar
dc.subjectOrthodontic anchorage procedures
dc.subjectOrthodontic appliance design
dc.subjectPeriodontal ligament
dc.subjectStress, mechanical
dc.subjectTooth movement techniques
dc.subjectTorsion, mechanical
dc.subjectAnatomic model
dc.subjectAnatomy and histology
dc.subjectBiomechanics
dc.subjectBone screw
dc.subjectDental procedure
dc.subjectDevices
dc.subjectDiagnostic imaging
dc.subjectHuman
dc.subjectMechanical stress
dc.subjectMechanical torsion
dc.subjectMolar tooth
dc.subjectOrthodontic anchorage
dc.subjectOrthodontic procedure
dc.subjectOrthodontic tooth movement
dc.subjectProcedures
dc.subjectThree dimensional imaging
dc.subjectTooth implant
dc.titleTwo distalization methods compared in a novel patient-specific finite element analysis
dc.typeArticle

Files

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
2019-7356.pdf
Size:
3.31 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format