Journals / Turkish Journal of Orthodontics / 2018 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1

Dentofacial Effects of Fixed Functional Appliances with or without Mini Screw Anchorage in the Treatment of Class II Division I Malocclusion: A Finite Element Analysis

Pages
7–12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The highest tension rates were determined in the areas of condylar and articular discs.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: This study aimed to examine the biomechanical effects of the fixed functional appliances reinforced with miniscrews byfinite elements analysis over the cranial and facial bones, temporomandibular joint, and maxillary-mandibular teeth, which are usedfor the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions characterized as mandibular retrognathia.Methods: Three-dimensional (3-D) models of the cranial, mandibular, and maxillary bones were purchased from a company that pro-duces 3-D models of the bones.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Simulations of Forsus, screwed Forsus, Twin-Force and screwed Twin-Force appliances were conduct-ed on the 3 D models.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The highest tension rates were determined in the areas of condylar and articular discs.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

Objective: This study aimed to examine the biomechanical effects of the fixed functional appliances reinforced with miniscrews byfinite elements analysis over the cranial and facial bones, temporomandibular joint, and maxillary-mandibular teeth, which are usedfor the treatment of Class II division 1 malocclusions characterized as mandibular retrognathia.Methods: Three-dimensional (3-D) models of the cranial, mandibular, and maxillary bones were purchased from a company that pro-duces 3-D models of the bones. Simulations of Forsus, screwed Forsus, Twin-Force and screwed Twin-Force appliances were conduct-ed on the 3 D models. The miniscrew was placed in the inter-radicular area between the upper canine and first upper premolar teeth.Results: It was observed in the models that the first upper molar tooth was the most affected. The compressive stress was observedin the anterior area of the mandibular condyle neck in the Forsus appliances; however, it was observed in the posterior area of themandibular condyle neck in Twin-Force appliances.Conclusion: It was observed that molar distalization and expansion decreases in the functional appliances with the support of minis-crew. The highest tension rates were determined in the areas of condylar and articular discs.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALKIŞ, H., DORUK, C. (2018). Dentofacial Effects of Fixed Functional Appliances with or without Mini Screw Anchorage in the Treatment of Class II Division I Malocclusion: A Finite Element Analysis. Turkish Journal of Orthodontics, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 1, 7–12. https://ajindex.com/articles/375019

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (6)

  1. O’Brien K, Wright J, Conboy F, Sanjie Y, Mandall N, Chadwick S, et al. Effectiveness of treatment for Class II malocclusion with the Herbst or Twinblock appliances: a randomized, controlled trial. Am J Orth- od Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 124: 128-37. [CrossRef ] Ruf S, Pancherz H. Herbst/multibracket appliance treatment of Class II Division 1 malocclusions in early and late adulthood. A pro- spective cephalometric study of consecutively treated subjects. Eur J Orthod 2006; 28: 352-60. [CrossRef ] Pangrazio-Kulbersh V, Berger JL, Chermak DS, Kaczynski R, Simon ES, Haerian A. Treatment effects of the mandibular anterior reposi- tioning appliance on patients with Class II malocclusion. Am J Orth- od Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123: 286-95. [CrossRef ] Karacay S, Akın E, Olmez H, Gurton AU, Sagdıc D. Forsus Nitinol Flat Spring and Jasper Jumper corrections of Class II division 1 maloc- clusions. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 666-72.
  2. Jones G, Buschang PH, Kim KB, Oliver DR. Class II nonextraction pa- tients treated with the Forsus fatigue resistant device versus inter- maxillary elastics. Angle Orthod 2008; 78: 332-8. [CrossRef ] Heinig N, Göz G. Clinical application and effects of the Forsus spring. A study of a new Herbst hybrid. J Orofac Orthop 2001; 62: 436-50. [CrossRef ] El-Sheikh MM, Godfrey K, Manosudprasit M, Viwattanatipa N. Force deflection characteristics of the fatigue-resistant device spring: an in vitro study. World J Orthod 2007; 8: 30-6.
  3. Aras A, Ada E, Saracoglu H, Gezer NS, Aras I. Comparison of treat- ments with the Forsus fatigue resistant device in relation to skeletal maturity: a cephalometric and magnetic resonance imaging study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: 616-25. [CrossRef ] Günay EA, Arun T, Nalbantgil D. Evaluation of the immediate dento- facial changes in late adolescent patients treated with the FRDTM FRD. Eur J Dent 2011; 5: 423-32.
  4. Oztoprak MO, Nalbantgil D, Uyanlar A, Arun T. A cephalometric com- parative study of class II correction with Sabbagh Universal Spring (SUS2) and Forsus (FRD) appliances. Eur J Dent 2012; 6: 302-10.
  5. Janssen KI, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Sandham A. Skeletal anchor- age in orthodontics-a review of various systems in animal and hu- man studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2008; 23: 75-88.
  6. Farnsworth D, Rossouw PE, Ceen RF, Buschang PH. Cortical bone thickness at common miniscrew implant placement sites. Am J Or- thod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 139: 495-503. [CrossRef ] Chen J, Akyuz U, Xu L, Pidaparti R.