OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate mandibular deformation under clenching and to estimate its effect on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants (OMI). METHODS: Three finite element models were constructed using computed tomography (CT) images of 3 adults with different mandibular plane angles (A, low; B, average; and C, high). An OMI was placed between #45 and #46 in each model. Mandibular deformation under premolar and molar clenching was simulated. Comparisons were made between peri-orthodontic mini-implant compressive strain (POMI-CSTN) under clenching and orthodontic traction forces (150 g and 200 g). RESULTS: Three models with different mandibular plane angles demonstrated different functional deformation characteristics. The compressive strains around the OMI were distributed mesiodistally rather than occlusogingivally. In model A, the maximum POMI-CSTN under clenching was observed at the mesial aspect of #46 (1,401.75 microstrain [µE]), and similar maximum POMI-CSTN was observed under a traction force of 150 g (1,415 µE). CONCLUSIONS: The maximum POMI-CSTN developed by clenching failed to exceed the normally allowed compressive cortical bone strains; however, additional orthodontic traction force to the OMI may increase POMI-CSTN to compromise OMI stability.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to investigate mandibular deformation under clenching and to estimate its effect on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants (OMI). METHODS: Three finite element models were constructed using computed tomography (CT) images of 3 adults with different mandibular plane angles (A, low; B, average; and C, high). An OMI was placed between #45 and #46 in each model. Mandibular deformation under premolar and molar clenching was simulated. Comparisons were made between peri-orthodontic mini-implant compressive strain (POMI-CSTN) under clenching and orthodontic traction forces (150 g and 200 g). RESULTS: Three models with different mandibular plane angles demonstrated different functional deformation characteristics. The compressive strains around the OMI were distributed mesiodistally rather than occlusogingivally. In model A, the maximum POMI-CSTN under clenching was observed at the mesial aspect of #46 (1,401.75 microstrain [µE]), and similar maximum POMI-CSTN was observed under a traction force of 150 g (1,415 µE). CONCLUSIONS: The maximum POMI-CSTN developed by clenching failed to exceed the normally allowed compressive cortical bone strains; however, additional orthodontic traction force to the OMI may increase POMI-CSTN to compromise OMI stability.
Entities:
Keywords:
Anatomy; Finite element method; Neuromuscular force; Orthodontic mini-implant; Stability