Comparative evaluation of different loops for individual canine and en-masse retraction-a finite element method (fem) study

https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS1.5302

Authors

  • Minal Barot Senior resident, Department of Orthodontics, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Uvarsad, Gandhinagar
  • Alap Shah Professor and Head, Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Uvarsad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
  • Sagar Hirani Reader, Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Uvarsad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
  • Kinnari Thakore Senior Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Uvarsad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
  • Sanjana Desai Professor, Department of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Uvarsad, Gandhinagar, Gujarat
  • Dhwani Pancholi Senior resident, Department of periodontology, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Uvarsad, Gandhinagar

Keywords:

Finite element method, T Loop, Mushroom Loop, Opus Loop, Frictionless Mechanics

Abstract

The aim and objective was to compare and evaluate the T loop, Mushroom loop and Opus loop for individual canine and en-masse retraction for space closure without preactivation bends using finite element method. The geometric model of maxilla was constructed using CBCT scan. The bracket system simulated was of standard MBT bracket system and arch wire used were 19*25 Stainless Steel and 17*25 TMA for fabrication of loops. There were six different models generated with segmented T loop, Mushroom loop & Opus loop and Continuous T loop, Mushroom loop & Opus loop. The software used for post-processing of the model was ANSYS Hypermesh 2019.0. When retraction forces were given with activation of loops, maximum amount of initial tooth displacement for individual canine retraction was observed for segmented T loop and for en masse retraction it was observed for continuous T loop. Although, there was intrusion of canine for all the three segmented loop, the preferred loop for canine retraction should be segmented T loop and for en masse retraction it should be continuous T loop as it shows least effect of retraction forces on anterior as well as posterior teeth during application of retraction force.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Gerson Luiz Ulema Ribeiro, Helder B. Jacob., Understanding the basis of space closure in Orthodontics for a more efficient orthodontic treatment.Dental Press J Orthod. 21(2):115-25: 2016.

Burstone CJ. The segmented arch approach to space closure. Am J Orthod. 1982 Nov;82(5):361-78.

Burstone CJ, Koenig HA. Optimizing anterior and canine retraction. Am J Orthod. 1976 Juy;70(1):1-19.

Kuhlberg AJ, Priebe DN. Space closure and anchorage control. Semin Orthod. 2001 Mar;7(1):42-9.

Monini AC, Gandini LG Jr, Santos-Pinto A, Maia LG, Rodrigues WC. Procedures adopted by orthodontists for space closure and Anchorage control. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013 Nov-Dec;18(6):86-92.

Uribe F, Nanda R. Treatment of Class II, Division 2 malocclusion in adults: Biomechanical considerations. JCO. 2003;37(11):599-606.

Nanda R. Biomechanics and esthetic strategies in clinical orthodontics. 1st ed. WB Saunders, 2005.

Siatkowski RL. Continuous archwire closing loop design, optimization and verification Part I. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:393-402.

Siatkowski RL. Continuous archwire closing loop design, optimization and verification Part II. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:487-495.

Vishal Seth Prasanth Kamath- A Marvel Of Modern Technology: Finite Element Model. Virtual J Orthod – 2010 Dec.

Charles J. Burstone, and Herbert A. Koenig - Optimizing anterior and canine retraction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial 1976 July vol 70 : 1-19.

Jeong GM, Sung SJ, Lee KJ, Chun YS, Mo SS. Finite- element investigation of the center of resistance of the maxillary dentition. Korean J Orthod.2009;39:83– 94.

Melson B, Fortis V, Burstone CJ. Vertical force considerations in differential space closure. J Clin Orthod.1990; 24:678–683.

Melson B. 1999. Biological reaction of alveolar bone to orthodontic tooth movement. Angle Orthod. 69:151–158.

Van eijden TM. 2000. Biomechanics of the mandible. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 11:123–136.

Bohara P, Kumar M, Sharma H, Jayprakash P, Misra V, Savana K. 2017. Stress distribution and displacement of maxillary anterior teeth during en-masse intrusion and retraction: a FEM study. J Ind Orthod Soc. 51:152–159.

Ralph WJ. 1982. Tensile behaviour of the periodontal ligament. J Periodontal Res. 17:423–426.

Zhang DQ, Su JH, Xu LY, Zhong PP. 2010. 3-D finite element analysis on centre of resistance of upper anterior teeth. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue. 19:534–540.

Sung SJ, Jang GW, Chun YS, Moon YS. 2010. Effective en-masse retraction design with orthodontic mini-implant anchorage: a finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 137:648–657.

Jeong GM, Sung SJ, Lee KJ, Chun YS, Mo SS. 2009. Finite- element investigation of the center of resistance of the maxillary dentition. Korean J Orthod. 39:83–94.

Field C, Ichim I, Swain MV, Chan E, Darendeliler MA, Li W, Li Q. 2009. Mechanical responses to orthodontic loading: a 3- dimensional finite element multi-tooth model. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 135:174–181

Viecilli RF, Burstone CJ. 2015. Ideal orthodontic alignment load relationships based on periodontal ligament stress. Orthod Craniofac Res. 18:180–186.

Braun S, Garcia JL. The Gable bend revisited. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:523-7.

Thiesen G, Shimizu RH, do Valle CV, do Valle-Corotti KM, Pereira JR, Conti PC. Determination of the force systems produced by different configurations of tear drop orthodontic loops. Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18:19.e1-18.

Braun S, Sjursen RC Jr, Legan HL. On the mana- gement of extraction sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:645-55.

Halazonetis DJ. Understanding orthodontic loop preactivation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:237-41.

Viecilli RF. Self-corrective T-loop design for differential space closure. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:48-53.

Rose D, Quick A, Swain M, Herbison P. Moment-to-force characteristics of preactivated nickel-titanium and titanium-molybdenum alloy symmetrical Tloops. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135: 757-63.

Techalertpaisarn P, Versluis A. Mechanical properties of Opus closing loops, Lloops, and T-loops inves- tigated with finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:675-83.

Published

02-04-2022

How to Cite

Barot, M., Shah, A., Hirani, S., Thakore, K., Desai, S., & Pancholi, D. (2022). Comparative evaluation of different loops for individual canine and en-masse retraction-a finite element method (fem) study. International Journal of Health Sciences, 6(S1), 3037–3050. https://doi.org/10.53730/ijhs.v6nS1.5302

Issue

Section

Peer Review Articles

Most read articles by the same author(s)