Journal of investigative and clinical dentistry · 2016
Monocortical versus bicortical hard palate anchorage with the same total available cortical thickness: a finite element study.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir Arash
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the bicortical fixation of a palatal miniscrew in comparison to monocortical anchorage when total anchored cortical layer thicknesses are the same.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six models were designed: I, monocortical, 1.1 mm palatal cortical thickness, 8.5 mm bone height; II, bicortical, 0.4 mm palatal, 0.7 mm nasal cortical thickness, 8 mm bone height; III, bicortical, 0.7 mm palatal and 0.4 mm nasal cortical thickness, 8 mm bone height; IV, monocortical, 1.1 mm palatal cortical thickness, 7 mm bone height; V, bicortical, 0.4 mm palatal, 0.7 mm nasal cortical thickness, 7 mm bone height; VI, bicortical, 0.7 mm palatal and 0.4 mm nasal cortical thickness, 8.5 mm bone height. An 8 mm miniscrew was fully engaged in the bone and was subjected to vertical pull out until displaced 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm or horizontal traction load of 2 N.
RESULTS: Monocortical fixation provides higher retention in comparison to bicortical fixations with the same total cortical thicknesses in terms of vertical pull-out test. Models with bicortical fixation and thicker nasal cortex sustained lower strain energy when subjected to horizontal traction load.
CONCLUSION: Bicortical fixation of hard palate exhibit different reactions to vertical and horizontal tractions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Six models were designed: I, monocortical, 1.1 mm palatal cortical thickness, 8.5 mm bone height; II, bicortical, 0.4 mm palatal, 0.7 mm nasal cortical thickness, 8 mm bone height; III, bicortical, 0.7 mm palatal and 0.4 mm nasal cortical thickness, 8 mm bone height; IV, monocortical, 1.1 mm palatal cortical thickness, 7 mm bone height; V, bicortical, 0.4 mm palatal, 0.7 mm nasal cortical thickness, 7 mm bone height; VI, bicortical, 0.7 mm palatal and 0.4 mm nasal cortical thickness, 8.5 mm bone height. An 8 mm miniscrew was fully engaged in the bone and was subjected to vertical pull out until displaced 0.01 mm and 0.05 mm or horizontal traction load of 2 N.
RESULTS: Monocortical fixation provides higher retention in comparison to bicortical fixations with the same total cortical thicknesses in terms of vertical pull-out test. Models with bicortical fixation and thicker nasal cortex sustained lower strain energy when subjected to horizontal traction load.
CONCLUSION: Bicortical fixation of hard palate exhibit different reactions to vertical and horizontal tractions.