Three-dimensional stress analysis with two molar protraction techniques using Finite Element Modeling

Three Different Fixation Modalities following Mandibular Setback Surgery with Sagittal Split Ramus Osteotomy: A Comparative Study using Three-dimensional Finite Elements Analysis

Background

The provision of sufficient stability after maxillofacial surgery is essential for the reduction of complications and disease recurrence. The stabilization of osteotomized pieces results in rapid restoration of normal masticatory function, reduction of skeletal relapse, and uneventful healing at the osteotomy site. We aimed to compare qualitatively stress distribution patterns over a virtual mandible model after bilateral sagittal split osteotomy (BSSO) bridged with three different intraoral fixation techniques.

Methods

This study was conducted in the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department of Mashhad School of Dentistry, Mashhad, Iran, from March 2021-March 2022. The mandible computed tomography scan of a healthy adult was used to generate a 3D model; thereafter, BSSO with a 3mm setback was simulated. The three following fixation techniques were applied to the model: 1) two bicortical screws, 2) three bicortical screws, and 3) a miniplate. The bilateral second premolars and first molars were placed under mechanical loads of 75, 135, and 600N in order to simulate symmetric occlusal forces. Finite element analysis (FEA) was carried out in Ansys software, and the mechanical strain, stress, and displacement calculations were recorded.

Results

The FEA contours revealed that stress was mainly concentrated in the fixation units. Although bicortical screws presented better rigidity than miniplates, they were associated with higher stress and displacement readings.

Conclusion

Miniplate fixation demonstrated the most favorable biomechanical performance, followed by fixation with two and three bicortical screws, respectively. Intraoral fixation with miniplates in combination with monocortical screws can serve as an appropriate fixation arrangement and treatment option for skeletal stabilization after BSSO setback surgery.

Effects of Rigid and Nonrigid Connections between the Miniscrew and Anchorage Tooth on Dynamics, Efficacy, and Adverse Effects of Maxillary Second Molar Protraction: A Finite Element Analysis

Introduction

Direct, rigid indirect, and nonrigid indirect absolute anchorages using temporary anchorage devices (TADs, mini-implants/miniscrews) can provide promising opportunities for challenging, yet common, orthodontic tooth movements such as molar protraction. Rigid rectangular wire and ligature wire are the most common methods of attaching a tooth to a miniscrew in indirect anchorages. We aimed to provide a comparison of the rigidity of the connecting wire in terms of stress on the miniscrew, the anchorage loss, and the risk of root resorption using finite element analysis (FEA).

Methods

The maxillary right second molar was protracted into the proximal space at a 150 g load (1) using direct absolute anchorage with a tapered miniscrew implanted between the premolar roots and using indirect absolute anchorage with the second premolar reinforced by the miniscrew through (2) a rigid stainless steel (SS) wire or (3) a nonrigid SS ligature wire (4) at different elastic moduli. Stresses and displacements of 4 models' elements were measured. The risk of external root resorption was evaluated.

Results

Connecting the tooth to the miniscrew using rigid full-size wire (model 2) compared to ligature (model 3) can give better control of the anchorage (using the ligature wire, the anchorage loss is 1.5 times larger than the rectangular wire) and may reduce the risk of root resorption of the anchorage unit. However, the risk of miniscrew failure increases with a rigid connection, although it is still lower than with direct anchorage. The miniscrew stress when using a ligature is approximately 30% of the rigid model using the rectangular wire. The miniscrew stress using the rectangular wire is approximately 82.4% of the miniscrew stress in the direct model. Parametric analysis shows that the higher the elastic modulus of the miniscrew-tooth connecting wire in the indirect anchorage, the less the anchorage loss/palatal rotation of the premolars/and the risk of root resorption of the anchorage teeth and instead the stress on the miniscrew increases.

Conclusions

Direct anchorage (followed by rigid indirect anchorage but not nonrigid) might be recommended when the premolars should not be moved or premolar root resorption is a concern. Miniscrew loosening risk might be the highest in direct anchorage and lowest in nonrigid indirect anchorage (which might be recommended for poor bone densities).