• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.17 no.4
• /
• pp.283-305
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this study was to analyze the stress distribution of condylar regions and edentulous mandible with implant-supported cantilever prostheses on the certain conditions, such as amount of load, location of load, direction of load, fixation or non-fixation on the condylar regions. Three dimensional finite element analysis was used for this study. FEM model was created by using commercial software, ANSYS(Swanson, Inc., U.S.A.). Fixed model which was fixed on the condylar regions was modeled with 74323 elements and 15387 nodes and spring model which was sprung on the condylar regions was modeled with 75020 elements and 15887 nodes. Six Br${\aa}$nemark implants with 3.75 mm diameter and 13 mm length were incorporated in the models. The placement was 4.4 mm from the midline for the first implant; the other two in each quardrant were 6.5 mm apart. The stress distribution on each model through the designed mandible was evaluated under 500N vertical load, 250N horizontal load linguobuccally, buccal 20 degree 250N oblique load and buccal 45 degree 250N oblique load. The load points were at 0 mm, 10 mm, 20 mm along the cantilever prostheses from the center of the distal fixture. The results were as follows; 1. The stress distribution of condylar regions between two models showed conspicuous differences. Fixed model showed conspicuous stress concentration on the condylar regions than spring model under vertical load only. On the other hand, spring model showed conspicuous stress concentration on the condylar regions than fixed model under 250N horizontal load linguobuccally, buccal 20 degree 250N oblique load and buccal 45 degree 250N oblique load. 2. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the posterior and mesial side of working and balancing condylar necks but spring model showed stress concentration on the posterior and mesial side of working condylar neck and the posterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck under vertical load. 3. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the posterior and lateral side of working condylar neck and the anterior and mesial side of balancing condylar neck but spring model showed stress concentration on the anterior sides of working and balancing condylar necks under horizontal load linguobuccally. 4. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the posterior side of working condylar neck and the posterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck but spring model showed stress concentration on the anterior side of working condylar neck and the anterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck under buccal 20 degree oblique load. 5. Fixed model showed stress concentration on the anterior and lateral side of working condylar neck and the posterior and mesial side of balancing condylar neck but spring model showed stress concentration on the anterior side of working condylar neck and the anterior and lateral side of balancing condylar neck under buccal 45 degree oblique load.. 6. The stress distribution of bone around implants between two models revealed difference slightly. In general, magnitude of Von Mises stress was the greatest at the bone around the most distal implant and the progressive decrease more and more mesially. Under vertical load, the stress values were similar between implant neck and superstructure vertically, besides the greatest on the distal side horizontally. 7. Under horizontal load linguobuccally, buccal 20 degree oblique load and buccal 45 degree oblique load, the stress values were the greatest on the implant neck vertically, and great on the labial and lingual sides horizontally. After all, it was considered that spring model was an indispensable condition for the comprehension of the stress distributions of condylar regions.

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.31 no.3 s.86
• /
• pp.311-323
• /
• 2001

One of the various mechanics used to treat unilateral Class II malocclusion is head gear with asymmetric face bow. We made the finite element models of unilateral Class II maxillary dental arch and power arm asymmetric face bow. We designed this experiment to observe stress distribution of periodontal ligament, reaction force, and displacement and to understand force system, so to predict the therapeutic effect. On the basis of computerized tomograph of maxillary dental arch of 25 years old male with normal occlusion without extraction and orthodontic treatment history, we made finite element models of maxillary dental arch and periodontal ligament. Then we modified that model to unilateral maxillary Class II malocclusion model of which maxillary left molar displaced mesially. Also, We made finite element model of asymmetric face bow of which right outer bow shorter than left by 25mm(RMO, Penta-FormTM/Medium size, 0.045 inch iner bow, 0.072 inch outer bow). After that, retraction force of 250g, 300b, 350g were applied to maxillary first molar. We concluded as follow. 1. The Net force that both maxillary first molars were received increased as the retraction force increased. Mesially positioned tooth received more force than normally positioned tooth. But, both tooth were received distal force, so distal movement occured. 2. Both tooth received buccal lateral force. In analysis of force element, as the retraction force were increased, force of X-axis at mesially positioned tooth decreased, and force of X-axis at normally positioned tooth increased. so lateral force component moved to the side received less force from more force. 3. There were rotation, tipping with distal movement in maxillary first molar. As retraction force were increased, rotation and tipping also increased. More tipping and rotation occured at the side received more force, that is, mesially positioned tooth. Though it Is small change, displacement of same pattern occur in normally positioned tooth