To Evaluate the Favourable Distribution Pattern of Stress in Maxilla and Mandible during Maxillary Protraction Using Miniplates of Varying Diameters and Thread Pitches under Different Levels of Inter Maxillary Forces: A Study Using Finite Element Analysis


Authors : Dr. Janu S Nair; Dr. Amal. S Nair; Dr. Anjana. S Nair

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/ya9w486k

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/3jnpm34v

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24JUL682

Abstract : Introduction The aim of the study is to compare the stress distribution pattern by three different diameters of miniplate (1.5 mm, 2 mm, 2.5 mm) of three different mini- implant thread pitches (0 .5 mm, 1 mm, 1.5 mm), in the maxilla and mandible during maxillary protraction using different inter-maxillary elastic force of (2 N,4N,6N,8 N).  Materials and Methods Using Autocad software and plate geometry, a 3D finite element model of the maxilla was made with a miniplate at the infrazygomatic buttress and a mandibular miniplate at the mandibular parasymphysis. Stress distributions and displacements were analyzed in Von Mises stress form using Ansys software.  Results In the implant study, the Von Mises stress in bone (Mpa) was 142 Mpa for the 1 mm diameter implant, which was the lowest compared to 170 Mpa for the 0.5 mm pitch and 233 Mpa for the 1.5 mm pitch. Whereas in skull study when 2N elastic force was applied for a 2 mm diameter minimplant, the maximum Von Mises stress at 0.5mm,1mm and 1.5mm thread pitch was (18.454 Mpa, 18.47 Mpa, and 18.344 Mpa. For elastic force of 4N was (18,465 Mpa, 18.492 Mpa and 18.244 Mpa), for 6N elastic force was 18.388 Mpa, 18.43 Mpa and 18.086 Mpa), and for 8N was (18.272 Mpa, 18.324 Mpa and 17.883 Mpa), which was similar compared from other two diameters.  Conclusion When comparing 1.5 mm, 2 mm, and 2.5 mm diameter implants with 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 1.5 mm pitch thread , the 2 mm diameter at 1 mm pitch thread shows the least strained bone in the implant study. Whereas,in the skull study, 2 mm diameter mini-implants had similar stress distribution in the maxilla and mandible,in all the thread pitches and elastic force which shows pitch variants and different force application is not a factor for stress distribution in the bone.

Keywords : Class III Skeletal Malocclusion, Finite Element Method, Miniplates.

References :

  1. H DC. Orthopaedic traction of the maxiila with miniplates: A new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency. Journal od Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2009;67:2123-29.
  2. Westwood PV, McNamara Jr JA, Baccetti T, Franchi L, Sarver DM. Long-term effects of Class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics. 2003 Mar 1;123(3):306-20.
  3. De Clerck H, Cevidanes L, Baccetti T. Dentofacial effects of bone-anchored maxillary protraction: a controlled study of consecutively treated Class III patients. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2010 Nov 1;138(5):577-81.
  4. Kim YK, Kim YJ, Yun PY, Kim JW. Effects of the taper shape, dual-thread, and length on the mechanical properties of mini-implants. The Angle orthodontist. 2009 Sep;79(5):908-14.
  5. Tarannum B A,Konda.Basic Principles of finite element method and its application in Orthodontics.Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Sciences.2012;16:1-5.
  6. M.J Turner,R.W Clough,H.C Mactinand.Stiffness and deflection analysis of complex structure.J.Aeronaut Sciences 1956;23:805-823.
  7. Moss ML, Skalak R, Patel H, Sen K, Moss-Salentijn L, Shinozuka M, Vilmann H. Finite element method modeling of craniofacial growth. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1985 Jun 1;87(6):453-72.
  8. A First Course in the finite element method.4th edition.Chapter 1.
  9. Building Materials 10-Testing Methods.Modulus of Elasticity Chapter 15.
  10. N.W.Tschoel .Poisson’s ratio in Linear viscoelasticity-A Critical Review.Mechanics of Time Dependent Materials.2002;6:3-51.
  11. Ming.Lun.Hsu.Application of finite element analysis in dentistry.Finite Element Analysis.2010.
  12. Heymann GC, Cevidanes L, Cornelis M, De Clerck HJ, Tulloch JC. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary protraction with intermaxillary elastics to miniplates. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2010 Feb 1;137(2):274-84.
  13. Kamlesh singh, Deepak kumar, Raj kumar jaiswal: temporary anchorage devices – Mini-implants: Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2010 JanJun; 1(1): 30–34.
  14. McNamara JA Jr. An orthopedic approach to the treatment of Class III malocclusion in growing children. J Clin Orthod 1987;21:598-608.
  15. Cozzani G. Extraoral traction and Class III treatment. Am J Orthod 1981;80:638- 50.
  16. Irie M, Nakamura S. Orthopedic approach to severe skeletal Class III malocclusion. Am J Orthod 1975;67:377-92.
  17. Roberts CA, Subtelny JD. An American Board of Orthodontics case report: use of the facial mask in the treatment of maxillary skeletal retrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;93:388-94.
  18. Kircelli BH, Pektaş Z, Uçkan S. Orthopedic protraction with skeletal anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and hypodontia. The Angle Orthodontist. 2006 Jan;76(1):156-63.
  19. Cornelis MA, Scheffler NR, De Clerck HJ, Tulloch JC, Behets CN. Systematic review of the experimental use of temporary skeletal anchorage devices in orthodontics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2007 Apr 1;131(4):S52-8.
  20. Eid OM, Ramadan AA, Nadim MA, Hamed TA. Maxillary protraction using orthodontic miniplates in correction of Class III malocclusion during growth. Journal of the World Federation of Orthodontists. 2016 Sep 1;5(3):100-6.
  21. Largura LZ, Argenta MA, Sakima MT, Camargo ES, Guariza-Filho O, Tanaka OM. Bone stress and strain after use of a miniplate for molar protraction and uprighting: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2014 Aug 1;146(2):198-206.
  22. Duaibis R, Kusnoto B, Natarajan R, Zhao L, Evans C. Factors affecting stresses in cortical bone around miniscrew implants: a three-dimensional finite element study. The Angle Orthodontist. 2012 Mar 5;82(5):875-80.
  23. Mottaghi Dastenaei F, Moghimi Zand M, Noorolahian S. Thread pitch variant in orthodontic mini-screws: a 3-D finite element analysis. Journal of Computational Applied Mechanics. 2015 Jul 1;46(2):257-65.
  24. Motoyoshi M, Yano S, Tsuruoka T, Shimizu N. Biomechanical effect of abutment on stability of orthodontic mini‐implant: A finite element analysis. Clinical Oral Implants Research. 2005 Aug;16(4):480-5.
  25. Abuhussein H, Pagni G, Rebaudi A, Wang HL. The effect of thread pattern upon implant osseointegration. Clinical oral implants research. 2010 Feb;21(2):129-36.
  26. da Cunha AC, Marquezan M, Lima I, Lopes RT, Nojima LI, Sant'Anna EF. Influence of bone architecture on the primary stability of different mini-implant designs. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2015 Jan 1;147(1):45-51.
  27. Handa A, Hegde N, Reddy VP, Chandrashekhar BS, Arun AV, Mahendra S. Effect of the thread pitch of orthodontic mini-implant on bone stress-A 3D finite element analysis. inflammation. 2011 Oct 1;4:7.
  28. Leung MT, Lee TC, Rabie AB, Wong RW. Use of miniscrews and miniplates in orthodontics. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. 2008 Jul 1;
    66(7):1461-6.
  29. Byoun NY, Nam EH, Yoon YA, Kim IK. Three-dimensional finite element analysis for stress distribution on the diameter of orthodontic mini-implants and insertion angle to the bone surface. Korean journal of orthodontics. 2006 Jun 1;36(3):178-87.

Introduction The aim of the study is to compare the stress distribution pattern by three different diameters of miniplate (1.5 mm, 2 mm, 2.5 mm) of three different mini- implant thread pitches (0 .5 mm, 1 mm, 1.5 mm), in the maxilla and mandible during maxillary protraction using different inter-maxillary elastic force of (2 N,4N,6N,8 N).  Materials and Methods Using Autocad software and plate geometry, a 3D finite element model of the maxilla was made with a miniplate at the infrazygomatic buttress and a mandibular miniplate at the mandibular parasymphysis. Stress distributions and displacements were analyzed in Von Mises stress form using Ansys software.  Results In the implant study, the Von Mises stress in bone (Mpa) was 142 Mpa for the 1 mm diameter implant, which was the lowest compared to 170 Mpa for the 0.5 mm pitch and 233 Mpa for the 1.5 mm pitch. Whereas in skull study when 2N elastic force was applied for a 2 mm diameter minimplant, the maximum Von Mises stress at 0.5mm,1mm and 1.5mm thread pitch was (18.454 Mpa, 18.47 Mpa, and 18.344 Mpa. For elastic force of 4N was (18,465 Mpa, 18.492 Mpa and 18.244 Mpa), for 6N elastic force was 18.388 Mpa, 18.43 Mpa and 18.086 Mpa), and for 8N was (18.272 Mpa, 18.324 Mpa and 17.883 Mpa), which was similar compared from other two diameters.  Conclusion When comparing 1.5 mm, 2 mm, and 2.5 mm diameter implants with 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 1.5 mm pitch thread , the 2 mm diameter at 1 mm pitch thread shows the least strained bone in the implant study. Whereas,in the skull study, 2 mm diameter mini-implants had similar stress distribution in the maxilla and mandible,in all the thread pitches and elastic force which shows pitch variants and different force application is not a factor for stress distribution in the bone.

Keywords : Class III Skeletal Malocclusion, Finite Element Method, Miniplates.

Video Explanation for Published paper

Never miss an update from Papermashup

Get notified about the latest tutorials and downloads.

Subscribe by Email

Get alerts directly into your inbox after each post and stay updated.
Subscribe
OR

Subscribe by RSS

Add our RSS to your feedreader to get regular updates from us.
Subscribe