Orthodontics & craniofacial research · 2024
A finite element study comparing Advansync® and Twin Block in mandibular anterior repositioning.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеКлинический случайНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Gómez-Gómez Sandra-Liliana, Sánchez-Uribe Luis-Alejandro, Villarraga-Ossa Junes-Abdul, Llano-Posada Maria-Camila, Guzmán-Velásquez Yeison, Arango-Hincapie Carlos Andrés, Ardila Carlos M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to utilize the finite element method (FEM) to compare the dentoalveolar and mandibular effects associated with anterior mandibular repositioning using AdvanSync® (ADV) and Twin Block (TB).
METHODS: A patient with Class II skeletal malocclusion and mandibular retrognathism was selected. A TB appliance was subsequently applied. Computed Tomography (CT) scans were acquired at the beginning of treatment (T1) and 8 months later (T2). Concurrently, a numerical TB model was validated through FEM simulations, which were compared with the T2 results. The ADV appliance was virtually simulated to evaluate stress and deformation on the condyle, symphysis, first lower molar and lower central incisors.
RESULTS: Both simulations demonstrated significant mandibular advancement. However, ADV led to less incisor proclination and more molar intrusion compared to TB. ADV exhibited increased stress in the lower molar area, while TB had higher stress in the lower incisor region. Stress and deformations in the condyle and mandibular symphysis were similar in both simulations, with the highest stress observed at the condylar neck and the lowest at the upper pole of the condylar head.
CONCLUSIONS: Both appliances achieved similar levels of mandibular advancement, with greater proclination of the lower central incisors and more widespread distribution of stress and molar intrusion when using ADV compared to TB.
METHODS: A patient with Class II skeletal malocclusion and mandibular retrognathism was selected. A TB appliance was subsequently applied. Computed Tomography (CT) scans were acquired at the beginning of treatment (T1) and 8 months later (T2). Concurrently, a numerical TB model was validated through FEM simulations, which were compared with the T2 results. The ADV appliance was virtually simulated to evaluate stress and deformation on the condyle, symphysis, first lower molar and lower central incisors.
RESULTS: Both simulations demonstrated significant mandibular advancement. However, ADV led to less incisor proclination and more molar intrusion compared to TB. ADV exhibited increased stress in the lower molar area, while TB had higher stress in the lower incisor region. Stress and deformations in the condyle and mandibular symphysis were similar in both simulations, with the highest stress observed at the condylar neck and the lowest at the upper pole of the condylar head.
CONCLUSIONS: Both appliances achieved similar levels of mandibular advancement, with greater proclination of the lower central incisors and more widespread distribution of stress and molar intrusion when using ADV compared to TB.