Limits...
Analysis of Different Positions of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Retainers versus Multistrand Wire Retainers Using the Finite Element Method.

Jahanbin A, Abtahi M, Heravi F, Hoseini M, Shafaee H - Int J Biomater (2014)

Bottom Line: Background.Materials and Methods. 3D finite element models were designed for a mandibular anterior segment: Model 1: flexible spiral wire bonded to the lingual teeth surfaces, Model 2: FRC bonded to the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces, and Model 3: FRC bonded to the middle third.Conclusion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Dental Research Center and Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad 9177948959, Iran.

ABSTRACT
Background. The aim of this study was to evaluate root displacement of the lower incisors fixed with FRC in different positions versus FSW retainers using the finite element method. Materials and Methods. 3D finite element models were designed for a mandibular anterior segment: Model 1: flexible spiral wire bonded to the lingual teeth surfaces, Model 2: FRC bonded to the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces, and Model 3: FRC bonded to the middle third. FE analysis was performed for three models and then tooth displacements were evaluated. Results. In contrast to lateral incisors and canines, the FSW retainer caused the central teeth to move more than the teeth bonded with FRC in both loadings. Comparison between Models 2 and 3 (in vertical loading) showed that FRC retainers that bonded at the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces made central and canine teeth move less than FRC retainers bonded at the middle third; however, for lateral teeth it was the opposite. Conclusion. FRC retainers bonded at the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces make central and canine teeth move less than FRC retainers bonded at the middle third in vertical loading; however, for lateral teeth it was the opposite.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Model 1 in which the flexible spiral wire bonded to the lingual teeth surfaces.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4221902&req=5

fig1: Model 1 in which the flexible spiral wire bonded to the lingual teeth surfaces.

Mentions: The multistrand wire (19.5 mm equal to 0.5 mm in width) was placed 6 mm gingival to the incisal edge in such a way to form a circular arc with these dimensions (Figure 1).


Analysis of Different Positions of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Retainers versus Multistrand Wire Retainers Using the Finite Element Method.

Jahanbin A, Abtahi M, Heravi F, Hoseini M, Shafaee H - Int J Biomater (2014)

Model 1 in which the flexible spiral wire bonded to the lingual teeth surfaces.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4221902&req=5

fig1: Model 1 in which the flexible spiral wire bonded to the lingual teeth surfaces.
Mentions: The multistrand wire (19.5 mm equal to 0.5 mm in width) was placed 6 mm gingival to the incisal edge in such a way to form a circular arc with these dimensions (Figure 1).

Bottom Line: Background.Materials and Methods. 3D finite element models were designed for a mandibular anterior segment: Model 1: flexible spiral wire bonded to the lingual teeth surfaces, Model 2: FRC bonded to the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces, and Model 3: FRC bonded to the middle third.Conclusion.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Dental Research Center and Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad 9177948959, Iran.

ABSTRACT
Background. The aim of this study was to evaluate root displacement of the lower incisors fixed with FRC in different positions versus FSW retainers using the finite element method. Materials and Methods. 3D finite element models were designed for a mandibular anterior segment: Model 1: flexible spiral wire bonded to the lingual teeth surfaces, Model 2: FRC bonded to the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces, and Model 3: FRC bonded to the middle third. FE analysis was performed for three models and then tooth displacements were evaluated. Results. In contrast to lateral incisors and canines, the FSW retainer caused the central teeth to move more than the teeth bonded with FRC in both loadings. Comparison between Models 2 and 3 (in vertical loading) showed that FRC retainers that bonded at the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces made central and canine teeth move less than FRC retainers bonded at the middle third; however, for lateral teeth it was the opposite. Conclusion. FRC retainers bonded at the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces make central and canine teeth move less than FRC retainers bonded at the middle third in vertical loading; however, for lateral teeth it was the opposite.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus