Comparative evaluation of effectiveness of three versus four mini-implants for simultaneous intrusion and retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: A 3D FEM study

Q2 Dentistry
Sajal Gupta, Amit Kr. Khera, Pradeep Raghav, A. Wadhawan, Pankaj Wadhwa, Nupur Sharma
{"title":"Comparative evaluation of effectiveness of three versus four mini-implants for simultaneous intrusion and retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: A 3D FEM study","authors":"Sajal Gupta, Amit Kr. Khera, Pradeep Raghav, A. Wadhawan, Pankaj Wadhwa, Nupur Sharma","doi":"10.4103/jos.jos_57_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n To evaluate and compare the displacement pattern of maxillary anterior teeth in the sagittal and vertical planes and evaluate the stress distribution in pdl, bone, teeth of the maxillary anterior region, and around the mini-implants during simultaneous en-masse retraction and intrusion using two, three, and four mini-implants combinations.\n \n \n \n A three-dimensional FEM model of maxillary teeth and periodontal ligament housed in the alveolar bone with extracted first premolarswasgenerated. The models were broadly divided into three groups according to the number of mini-implants. Mini-implants were placed bilaterally between the second premolar and molar in group I, and along with bilateral implants, an additional mid-implant was placed between the central incisors as in group II, whereas in group III, anterior mini-implants were placed in between lateral incisors and canine bilaterally.\n \n \n \n The two mini-implant model showed the maximum amount of retraction in the sagittal plane followed by three and four mini-implant models. In the vertical plane, all six anterior teeth showed intrusion only in the four mini-implant model. The stress in cortical bone, cancellous bone, PDL, around the mini-implants, and in lateral incisor was maximum in the three mini-implant model, followed by four mini-implants with the least stress in the two mini-implant model.\n \n \n \n The four mini-implant model is better than the three and two mini-implants model as there is a more even distribution of force in the four mini-implants model as compared to the three mini-implants model.\n","PeriodicalId":16604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orthodontic Science","volume":"34 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orthodontic Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_57_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To evaluate and compare the displacement pattern of maxillary anterior teeth in the sagittal and vertical planes and evaluate the stress distribution in pdl, bone, teeth of the maxillary anterior region, and around the mini-implants during simultaneous en-masse retraction and intrusion using two, three, and four mini-implants combinations. A three-dimensional FEM model of maxillary teeth and periodontal ligament housed in the alveolar bone with extracted first premolarswasgenerated. The models were broadly divided into three groups according to the number of mini-implants. Mini-implants were placed bilaterally between the second premolar and molar in group I, and along with bilateral implants, an additional mid-implant was placed between the central incisors as in group II, whereas in group III, anterior mini-implants were placed in between lateral incisors and canine bilaterally. The two mini-implant model showed the maximum amount of retraction in the sagittal plane followed by three and four mini-implant models. In the vertical plane, all six anterior teeth showed intrusion only in the four mini-implant model. The stress in cortical bone, cancellous bone, PDL, around the mini-implants, and in lateral incisor was maximum in the three mini-implant model, followed by four mini-implants with the least stress in the two mini-implant model. The four mini-implant model is better than the three and two mini-implants model as there is a more even distribution of force in the four mini-implants model as compared to the three mini-implants model.
三颗与四颗微型种植体同时植入和牵引上颌前牙的效果比较评估:三维有限元研究
评估和比较上颌前牙在矢状面和垂直面上的位移模式,并评估在使用两个、三个和四个迷你种植体组合同时进行整体牵引和侵入时,牙周韧带、牙槽骨、上颌前牙区域的牙齿以及迷你种植体周围的应力分布。 在拔出的第一前磨牙的牙槽骨中,生成了上颌牙和牙周韧带的三维有限元模型。根据微型种植体的数量,模型大致分为三组。第一组在第二前磨牙和臼齿之间植入双侧迷你种植体,第二组在植入双侧种植体的同时,在中切牙之间植入额外的中间种植体,而第三组则在双侧侧切牙和犬齿之间植入前方迷你种植体。 在矢状面上,两颗迷你种植体模型的回缩幅度最大,其次是三颗和四颗迷你种植体模型。在垂直面上,只有四颗微型种植体模型的六颗前牙都出现了内陷。皮质骨、松质骨、PDL、迷你种植体周围和侧切牙的应力在三颗迷你种植体模型中最大,其次是四颗迷你种植体,而在两颗迷你种植体模型中应力最小。 四颗迷你种植体模型优于三颗和两颗迷你种植体模型,因为与三颗迷你种植体模型相比,四颗迷你种植体模型的力分布更均匀。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Orthodontic Science
Journal of Orthodontic Science Dentistry-Orthodontics
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
审稿时长
19 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信