| Literature DB >> 22195003 |
Ashley S Hammond1, Elizabeth R Dumont, Robert C McCarthy.
Abstract
Human mothers wean their children from breast milk at an earlier developmental stage than do ape mothers, resulting in human children chewing solid and semi-solid foods using the deciduous dentition. Mechanical forces generated by chewing solid foods during the post-weaning period travel through not only the deciduous teeth, but also the enamel caps of the developing permanent teeth within the maxilla and mandible, which are not present in the adult face. The effects of mechanical stress propagating through these very stiff structures have yet to be examined. Based on a heuristic model, we predicted that the enamel of the embedded developing teeth would act to reduce stresses in the surrounding bony elements of the juvenile face. We tested this hypothesis by simulating occlusal loading in a finite element (FE) model of a child's cranium with a complete set of deciduous teeth and the first permanent molars embedded in the bony crypt in the maxilla. We modeled bone and enamel with appropriate material properties and assessed the effect of embedding high-stiffness enamel structures on stress distribution in the juvenile face. Against expectation, the presence of unerupted enamel caps does not affect the magnitude or location of stresses in the juvenile face. Our results do not support the hypothesis that the unerupted secondary teeth act to moderate stresses in the juvenile face.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2011 PMID: 22195003 PMCID: PMC3237591 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029121
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Geometric abstraction.
Finite element analyses demonstrating the effect of a stiff object (the sphere) embedded within a less-stiff object on von Mises stress during loading. Side-views (a) and cross-sections (b,c) are presented for a model with a stiff center (heterogeneous) and an identical model with the material properties of cortical bone throughout (homogeneous). The solved models indicate a reduction in average von Mises stress in the outer bony shell in the homogeneous model, with increased von Mises stress found in the stiffer center relative to the homogenous model (d). Results are scaled from 0 to 2.0×107 Pa, with highest stresses indicated by white regions.
Model material properties*.
| Bone | Secondary Teeth | ||||
| Model | Total Load (N) | Modulus (GPa) | Poisson's Ratio | Modulus (GPa) | Poisson's Ratio |
| Heterogeneous | 350 | 9.1 | 0.38 | 77.9 | 0.33 |
| Homogeneous | 350 | 9.1 | 0.38 | 9.1 | 0.38 |
*Values following [27], [28].
Location of points sampled.
| Landmark | Tetrahedral | Location |
| 1 | 214,332 | most inferior and anterior point on right orbital margin (orbitale) |
| 2 | 45,755 | most inferior and anterior point onleft orbital margin (orbitale) |
| 3 | 10,461 | midline point at inferior free end of internasal suture (rhinion) |
| 4 | 633,483 | midline point on inferior nasal aperature (nasospinale) |
| 5 | 76,954 | midline point at inferior bony septum between maxillary incisors (alveolare) |
| 6 | 34,492 | midpoint between base of the right zygomatic arch and the buccal sideof right M2 |
| 7 | 233,634 | midpoint between base of the left zygomatic arch and the buccal sideof left M2 |
| 8 | 796,604 | superior center of the right permanent M2 tooth cap |
| 9 | 817,383 | superior center of the left permanent M2 tooth cap |
| 10 | 795,808 | inferior (occlusal) center of the right permanent M2 tooth cap |
| 11 | 812,817 | inferior (occlusal) center of the left permanent M2 tooth cap |
| 12 | 790,006 | most superior point on right labial surface of right I1 tooth cap |
| 13 | 851,886 | most superior point on left labial surface of left I1 tooth cap |
| 14 | 794,686 | most inferior point on right labial surface of right I1 tooth cap |
| 15 | 851,410 | most inferior point on left labial surface of left I1 tooth cap |
Figure 2Comparison of von Mises stress by landmark.
Von Mises stress values are shown for fifteen landmarks from the face and the embedded enamel caps (a). Heterogeneous and homogeneous models under the incisal loads (b) and molar loads (c) differ in von Mises stress calculated in the developing enamel caps, but not the face. Tooth cap images in (a) are not shown to scale.
Landmark percent differences.
| % Difference | ||
| Landmark | Incisor Loading | Molar Loading |
| 1 | <1% | 5.1 |
| 2 | <1% | <1% |
| 3 | 1.6 | <1% |
| 4 | 4.0 | 9.7 |
| 5 | 2.2 | 1.7 |
| 6 | 2.0 | 5.1 |
| 7 | 16.2 | 4.1 |
| 8 | 122.2 | 127.1 |
| 9 | 133.7 | 140.0 |
| 10 | 93.4 | 125.2 |
| 11 | 95.7 | 126.1 |
| 12 | 118.9 | 150.3 |
| 13 | 127.3 | 133.5 |
| 14 | 157.2 | 161.9 |
| 15 | 157.3 | 154.8 |
The percent difference (%) between von Mises stresses for 15 landmarks under deciduous incisor (di1) and molar (dm1) loading. Values represent the percentage difference in the heterogeneous model relative to the homogeneous model.
Figure 3Solved models with secondary tooth caps extracted for illustration.
Overall patterns of von Mises stress are similar between models within trials, but not between trials, suggesting bite location (e.g. incisor versus molar) has a greater effect on the pattern of von Mises stress than do the material properties of tooth caps.