دورية أكاديمية
Effectiveness of the Attachment Design and Thickness of Clear Aligners during Orthodontic Anterior Retraction: Finite Element Analysis.
| العنوان: | Effectiveness of the Attachment Design and Thickness of Clear Aligners during Orthodontic Anterior Retraction: Finite Element Analysis. |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Alhasyimi AA; Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia., Ayub A; Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia., Farmasyanti CA; Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. |
| المصدر: | European journal of dentistry [Eur J Dent] 2024 Feb; Vol. 18 (1), pp. 174-181. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Mar 24. |
| نوع المنشور: | Journal Article |
| اللغة: | English |
| بيانات الدورية: | Publisher: Thieme Country of Publication: Germany NLM ID: 101303672 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Print ISSN: 1305-7456 (Print) NLM ISO Abbreviation: Eur J Dent Subsets: PubMed not MEDLINE |
| أسماء مطبوعة: | Publication: [2019]- : [Stuttgart] : Thieme Original Publication: Ankara : Dental Investigations Society |
| مستخلص: | Objective: Clear aligner treatment (CAT) provides orthodontic patients with a comfortable treatment alternative; however, this device has limited capacity to facilitate tooth movements. Although composite attachment has been proposed to facilitate tooth displacement, some of its aspects, such as aligner thickness, can influence CAT's precision. This work aimed to compare the stress distribution patterns produced by clear aligners with different thicknesses and composite attachment shapes during anterior retraction. Materials and Methods: Maxillary models consisting of clear aligners, maxillary teeth, and various attachments to the upper central incisor's labial surface were generated. Three models were built to mimic the retraction of the upper central incisors. Each had a distinct attachment design (rectangular attachment, ellipsoid attachment, and pyramidal attachment) and various aligner thicknesses (0.75, 0.85, 0.95, 1.05, and 1.15 mm). Upper central incisor retraction was accomplished using clear aligners. Finite element analysis was used to examine the built models. Stress distribution pattern was examined. Results: The greater the thickness of the aligner, the higher the stress experienced by the teeth. The 0.75 mm-thick aligner induces the lightest stress with a minimum of 0.0037623 MPa and a maximum of 0.32859 MPa. Meanwhile, the 1.5 mm-thick aligner has the highest stress with a minimum of 0.004679 MPa and a maximum of 0.43858 MPa. The force distribution on rectangular attachments appears evenly distributed. The maximum pressure force on rectangular attachments has a minimum of 0.38828 MPa, which is smaller than the maximum on ellipsoid and pyramidal attachments at 0.40933 and 0.45099 MPa, respectively. Conclusion: The best aligner thickness is 0.75 to 0.85 mm for anterior retraction. An aligner with 0.95 mm thickness can still be used when a remarkable amount of tooth movement force is needed; however, this exception is only applicable to a limited number of clear aligner trays. The ellipsoid attachment is the best type of attachment because the resulting force is substantial and evenly distributed. Competing Interests: None declared. (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).) |
| References: | J Biomech Eng. 2010 Jan;132(1):014504. (PMID: 20524752) Angle Orthod. 2017 Nov;87(6):801-808. (PMID: 28753032) J Am Dent Assoc. 2017 Jan;148(1):9-16. (PMID: 27771001) Eur J Dent. 2019 Jul;13(3):478-484. (PMID: 31494917) J Can Dent Assoc. 2007 Apr;73(3):263-6. (PMID: 17439714) Angle Orthod. 2007 Jul;77(4):653-9. (PMID: 17605484) F1000Res. 2019 Dec 10;8:2074. (PMID: 32566133) Prog Orthod. 2018 Oct 3;19(1):33. (PMID: 30280257) Eur J Dent. 2019 Oct;13(4):629-634. (PMID: 31891981) Materials (Basel). 2021 Jan 09;14(2):. (PMID: 33435457) Orthod Craniofac Res. 2017 Aug;20(3):127-133. (PMID: 28547915) Dental Press J Orthod. 2020 May;25(3):46-53. (PMID: 32844975) Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Nov;24(4):520-527. (PMID: 33386697) Materials (Basel). 2021 Aug 30;14(17):. (PMID: 34501017) Eur J Dent. 2022 May;16(2):274-285. (PMID: 34937109) Prog Orthod. 2016 Dec;17(1):31. (PMID: 27667816) Materials (Basel). 2020 Jul 29;13(15):. (PMID: 32751305) Angle Orthod. 2015 Sep;85(5):881-9. (PMID: 25412265) Sci Rep. 2020 Jun 23;10(1):10156. (PMID: 32576935) Prog Orthod. 2018 Apr 2;19(1):9. (PMID: 29607469) Prog Orthod. 2022 Apr 11;23(1):12. (PMID: 35399128) J Healthc Eng. 2019 Mar 3;2019:1075097. (PMID: 30944717) |
| تواريخ الأحداث: | Date Created: 20230324 Latest Revision: 20240324 |
| رمز التحديث: | 20240324 |
| مُعرف محوري في PubMed: | PMC10959602 |
| DOI: | 10.1055/s-0043-1761452 |
| PMID: | 36963425 |
| قاعدة البيانات: | MEDLINE |
| تدمد: | 1305-7456 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1055/s-0043-1761452 |