OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, using the finite element method, the orthodontic rotational movement of a lower second premolar obtained with clear aligners, analyzing different staging and attachment configurations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A CAD model including a complete lower dental arch (with element 4.5 mesially rotated 30°) and the corresponding periodontal ligaments, attachments, and aligner was designed and imported to finite element software. Starting from the CAD model, six projects were created to simulate the following therapeutic combinations for correcting element 4.5 position: (1) without attachments, (2) single attachment placed on the buccal surface of element 4.5, (3) three attachments placed on the buccal surfaces of teeth 4.4 to 4.6. For each project, both 1.2° and 3° of aligner activation were considered. RESULTS: All the analyzed configurations revealed a clockwise rotation movement of element 4.5 on the horizontal plane. Models with attachments showed a greater tooth displacement pattern than models without attachments. Simulations with attachments and 3° of aligner activation exhibited the best performance concerning tooth movement but registered high stresses in the periodontal ligaments, far from the ideal stress levels able to produce tooth rotational movement. CONCLUSIONS: The model with a single attachment and 1.2° of aligner activation was the most efficient, followed by the three attachment model with the same degree of activation. Aligner activation should not exceed 1.2° to achieve better control of movement and reasonable stress in periodontal structures.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, using the finite element method, the orthodontic rotational movement of a lower second premolar obtained with clear aligners, analyzing different staging and attachment configurations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A CAD model including a complete lower dental arch (with element 4.5 mesially rotated 30°) and the corresponding periodontal ligaments, attachments, and aligner was designed and imported to finite element software. Starting from the CAD model, six projects were created to simulate the following therapeutic combinations for correcting element 4.5 position: (1) without attachments, (2) single attachment placed on the buccal surface of element 4.5, (3) three attachments placed on the buccal surfaces of teeth 4.4 to 4.6. For each project, both 1.2° and 3° of aligner activation were considered. RESULTS: All the analyzed configurations revealed a clockwise rotation movement of element 4.5 on the horizontal plane. Models with attachments showed a greater tooth displacement pattern than models without attachments. Simulations with attachments and 3° of aligner activation exhibited the best performance concerning tooth movement but registered high stresses in the periodontal ligaments, far from the ideal stress levels able to produce tooth rotational movement. CONCLUSIONS: The model with a single attachment and 1.2° of aligner activation was the most efficient, followed by the three attachment model with the same degree of activation. Aligner activation should not exceed 1.2° to achieve better control of movement and reasonable stress in periodontal structures.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomechanics; Clear aligner; Finite element analysis; Rotation