Does the presence of an unerupted lower third molar influence the risk of mandibular angle and condylar fractures?

It has been suggested that unerupted lower third molars (M3) increase the fragility of the mandibular angle and simultaneously decrease the risk of condylar fracture. However, it is unknown whether this applies regardless of the direction and point of impact of the traumatic force. The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of an unerupted M3 on the fragility of the angle and condyle in terms of a force acting from different directions and affecting different regions of the mandible. Computed tomography scans of a human mandible and finite element methodology were used to obtain two three-dimensional models: a model with, and the other without an unerupted M3. A force of 2000N was applied to three different regions of the models: the symphysis, ipsilateral body, and contralateral body, respectively. When the force was applied to the mandibular body, the results revealed increased angle fragility in cases with unerupted M3. When the force was applied to the symphysis, the condyle region showed higher fragility, irrespective of the presence of an unerupted M3. In summary, fragility of the angle and condyle regions depends on the presence of an unerupted M3 and on the direction and point of impact of the force.

Mechanical weakening of devitalized teeth: three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis and prediction of tooth fracture

AIM

To determine to which extent cavity preparation and each step of dentine removal in the process of root canal treatment (access cavity preparation and root canal enlargement) both individually and jointly contribute to the weakening of the tooth.

METHODS

Numerical analysis using finite element method (FEM) of separate and combined influence of two-surface Class II preparation and root canal treatment was undertaken to evaluate the decrease in tooth strength. The influence of the two stages in root canal treatment, access cavity preparation and root canal enlargement, was also analysed separately and jointly. After each of these phases, the crown was restored with composite resin, and the FEA was performed only on restored teeth. To estimate the influence of all these procedures on tooth fracture resistance numerically, a Failure Index based on the maximum principal stress criterion (MPCS) was applied. Compressive and tensile stresses were analysed separately and corresponding Failure Indices were calculated.

RESULTS

A two-surface resin composite restoration weakened the tooth by 23.25%. Nevertheless, the Failure Indices showed that this tooth was not likely to fracture even under high occlusal stress (710N). However, after access cavity preparation, the Failure Indices reached the point where, under high occlusal force that may occur in the posterior area, a tooth fracture occurred. The enlargement of root canals had an additional, but relatively small impact on tooth weakening, making the tooth even more susceptible to fracture. The combined influence of both cavity preparation and root canal enlargement led to weakening of 62.6% under a load of 710N, ultimately causing tooth fracture.

CONCLUSION

The combined finite element method and the maximum principal stress analysis gave insight into the fracture mechanisms of teeth with two-surface composite restorations followed by root canal preparation. Removal of tooth tissue, despite its subsequent restoration with dental materials, weakened the tooth by changing the stress intensity and distribution through tooth structures. Access cavity preparation had the greatest influence on tooth strength whilst canal enlargement did not contribute to this process substantially.