BMC oral health · 2023
Effect of access cavities on the biomechanics of mandibular molars: a finite element analysis.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Wang Xiao, Wang Dan, Wang Yi-Rong, Cheng Xiao-Gang, Ni Long-Xing, Wang Wei, Tian Yu
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to predict the fracture resistance of a mandibular first molar (MFM) with diverse endodontic cavities using finite element analysis (FEA).
METHODS: Five experimental finite element models representing a natural tooth (NT) and 4 endodontically treated MFMs were generated. Treated MFM models were with a traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) and minimally invasive endodontic (MIE) cavities, including guided endodontic cavity (GEC), contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) and truss endodontic cavity (TREC). Three loads were applied, simulating a maximum bite force of 600 N (N) vertically and a normal masticatory force of 225 N vertically and laterally. The distributions of von Mises (VM) stress and maximum VM stress were calculated.
RESULTS: The maximum VM stresses of the NT model were the lowest under normal masticatory forces. In endodontically treated models, the distribution of VM stress in GEC model was the most similar to NT model. The maximum VM stresses of the GEC and CEC models under different forces were lower than those of TREC and TEC models. Under vertical loads, the maximum VM stresses of the TREC model were the highest, while under the lateral load, the maximum VM stress of the TEC model was the highest.
CONCLUSION: The stress distribution of tooth with GEC was most like NT. Compared with TECs, GECs and CECs may better maintain fracture resistance, TRECs, however, may have a limited effect on maintenance of the tooth resistance.
METHODS: Five experimental finite element models representing a natural tooth (NT) and 4 endodontically treated MFMs were generated. Treated MFM models were with a traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) and minimally invasive endodontic (MIE) cavities, including guided endodontic cavity (GEC), contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) and truss endodontic cavity (TREC). Three loads were applied, simulating a maximum bite force of 600 N (N) vertically and a normal masticatory force of 225 N vertically and laterally. The distributions of von Mises (VM) stress and maximum VM stress were calculated.
RESULTS: The maximum VM stresses of the NT model were the lowest under normal masticatory forces. In endodontically treated models, the distribution of VM stress in GEC model was the most similar to NT model. The maximum VM stresses of the GEC and CEC models under different forces were lower than those of TREC and TEC models. Under vertical loads, the maximum VM stresses of the TREC model were the highest, while under the lateral load, the maximum VM stress of the TEC model was the highest.
CONCLUSION: The stress distribution of tooth with GEC was most like NT. Compared with TECs, GECs and CECs may better maintain fracture resistance, TRECs, however, may have a limited effect on maintenance of the tooth resistance.