Dataset Information

Stress distribution and displacement of three different types of micro-implant assisted rapid maxillary expansion (MARME): a three-dimensional finite element study.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objective

Until 2010, adults underwent surgical treatment for maxillary expansion; however, with the advent of micro-implant-assisted rapid maxillary expansion (MARME), the availability of less invasive treatment options has increased. Nevertheless, individuals with severe transverse maxillary deficiency do not benefit from this therapy. This has aroused interest in creating a new device that allows the benefit of maxillary expansion for these individuals. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of three MARME models according to tension points, force distribution, and areas of concentration in the craniofacial complex when transverse forces are applied using finite element analysis.

Materials and methods

Digital modeling of the three MARME models was performed. Model A comprised five components: one body screw expander and four adjustable arms with rings for mini-implant insertion. These arms have an individualized height adjustment that allows MARME positioning according to the patient's palatal anatomy, thereby preventing body screw expander collision with the lateral mucosa in severe cases of maxillary deficiency. Model B was a maxillary expander with screw rings joined to the body, and model C was similar to model B, except that model C had open rings for the insertion of the mini-implants. Through the MEF (Ansys software), the stresses, distribution, and area of concentration of the stresses were evaluated when transverse forces of 7.85 N were applied.

Results

The three models maintained the following pattern: model C presented weak stress peaks with limited distribution and lower concentration area, model B obtained median stress peaks with better distribution when compared to that of model C, and model A showed better stress distribution and larger concentration area. In model A, tensions were located in the lateral lamina of the pterygoid process, which is an important site for maxillary expansion. The limitation of the present study was that it did not include the periodontal tissues and muscles in the finite element method evaluation.

Conclusions

Model A showed the best stress distribution conditions. In cases of severe atresia, model A seems to be an excellent option.

SUBMITTER: Andre CB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8217479 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThis study aims to investigate the biomechanical effects of anchorage reinforcement using clear aligners (CAs) with microimplants during molar distalization. And also explores potential clinical strategies for enhancing anchorage in the sequential distalization process.MethodsFinite element models were established to simulate the CAs, microimplants, upper dentition, periodontal ligament (PDL), and alveolar bone. In group set I, the 2nd molars underwent a distal movement of 0.25 mm in group set II, the 1st molars were distalized by 0.25 mm after the 2nd molars had been placed to a target position. Each group set consisted of three models: Model A served as the control model, Model B simulated the use of microimplants attached to the aligner through precision cuts, and Model C simulated the use of microimplants attached by buttons. Models B and C were subjected to a series of traction forces. We analyzed the effective contribution ratios of molar distalization, PDL hydrostatic stress, and von Mises stress of alveolar bone.ResultsThe distalization of the 2nd molars accounted for a mere 52.86% of the 0.25-mm step distance without any reinforcement of anchorage. The remaining percentage was attributed to the mesial movement of anchorage teeth and other undesired movements. Models B and C exhibited an increased effective contribution ratio of molar distalization and a decreased loss of anchorage. However, there was a slight increase in the undesired movement of molar tipping and rotation. In group set II, the 2nd molar displayed a phenomenon of mesial relapse due to the reciprocal force produced by the 1st molar distalization. Moreover, the efficacy of molar distalization in terms of contribution ratio was found to be positively correlated with the magnitude of force applied. In cases where stronger anchorage reinforcement is required, precision cuts is the superior method.ConclusionsThe utilization of microimplants in conjunction with CAs can facilitate the effective contribution ratio of molar distalization. However, it is important to note that complete elimination of anchorage loss is not achievable. To mitigate undesired movement, careful planning of anchorage preparation and overcorrection is recommended.

Project description:Background/objectivesTo compare the biomechanical characteristics of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners in conjunction with three types of miniscrew anchorage.Materials/methodsThree-dimensional (3D) finite element models of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners and three types of miniscrew anchorage were established, including (A) control group, (B) direct buccal miniscrew anchorage group, (C) direct palatal miniscrew anchorage group, and (D) indirect buccal miniscrew anchorage group. The 3D displacement of maxillary teeth and the principal stress (maximum tensile and compressive stress) on the root and periodontal ligament (PDL) during molar distalization were recorded.ResultsThe tooth displacement pattern during maxillary molar distalization in the four groups showed similarities, including labial tipping of anterior teeth, mesial and buccal tipping of premolars, and distal and buccal tipping of molars, but with varying magnitudes. Group C exhibited the greatest molar distalization, with the first molar achieving 0.1334 mm of crown distalization. Group D demonstrated a notable buccal crown movement (0.0682 mm) and intrusion (0.0316 mm) of the first premolar. Compared to Groups A and B, Groups C and D showed less labial crown tipping of the central incisor. Group B showed the greatest amount of maxillary incisor intrusion (central incisor: 0.0145 mm, lateral incisor: 0.0094 mm). Moreover, Groups C and D displayed significantly lower levels of compressive and tensile stress in the roots and PDL of the maxillary central and lateral incisors.LimitationMolar distalization is a dynamic process involving sequential tooth movement stages; however, our research primarily examined the tooth movement patterns in the initial aligner.Conclusions/implicationsThe use of miniscrew anchorage, especially direct palatal miniscrew anchorage, may enhance the treatment efficacy of maxillary molar distalization with clear aligners, leading to increased molar distalization, reduced mesial movement of premolars, and minimized labial tipping of anterior teeth.