Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of different attachment configurations with and without buccal root torque on expansion movements achieved with aligners through finite element analysis (FEA).MethodsFEA modelling was done with 0.25 mm buccal expansion force application to the maxillary molars with different attachment configurations: Eight models were tested (1) no attachment (NA), (2) horizontal attachment (HA), (3) gingivally beveled horizontal attachment (GHA), and (4) occlusally beveled horizontal attachment (OHA), as well as models with 6obuccal root torque, (5) no attachment (TNA), (6) horizontal attachment (THA), (7) gingivally beveled horizontal attachment (TGHA), and (8) occlusally beveled horizontal attachment (TOHA).ResultsThe first and second molars exhibited buccal tipping in all models. The highest amount of buccal tipping for the molars was observed in the NA (6CMB, 0.232 mm; 6CMP, 0.246 mm; 7CMB, 0.281 mm; 7CMP, 0.312 mm) and GHA (6CMB, 0.230; 6CMP, 0.245; 7CMB, 0.279 mm; 7CMP, 0.311 mm) models, respectively, while the least tipping was observed in the TOHA model (6CMB, 0.155 mm; 6CMP, 0.168 mm; 7CMB, 0.216 mm; 7CMP, 0.240 mm). In all groups, the buccal tipping of the second molars was higher than that of the first molars.ConclusionThis FEA study showed that expansion with aligners tip maxillary molars buccally and the use of occlusally beveled attachments and addition of buccal root torque reduces uncontrolled buccal tipping.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.