Premium
Can interfaces at bracket‐wire and between teeth in multi‐teeth finite element model be simplified?
Author(s) -
Liu Yanzhi,
Jiang Feifei,
Chen Jie
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
international journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.741
H-Index - 63
eISSN - 2040-7947
pISSN - 2040-7939
DOI - 10.1002/cnm.3169
Subject(s) - finite element method , bracket , stress (linguistics) , displacement (psychology) , materials science , mandible (arthropod mouthpart) , isotropy , periodontal fiber , cortical bone , premolar , cancellous bone , molar , structural engineering , mechanics , orthodontics , engineering , physics , medicine , psychology , philosophy , linguistics , botany , anatomy , quantum mechanics , pathology , psychotherapist , biology , genus
Objective Finite element (FE) method's correctness depends heavily on modeling method. This study aimed at determining whether the interfaces at bracket‐wire and between teeth can be simplified for multi‐teeth FE analysis. Method A three‐dimensional FE model of a mandible was created from cone‐beam computed tomography scan. Due to symmetry, only a half of the mandible was modeled, which consisted of five teeth (first premolar extraction and only first molar), brackets and archwire, periodontal ligament (PDL), cortical bone, and cancellous bone. All the bone, teeth, and PDL were considered to be isotropic and linear. The En‐masse retraction case was simulated. A detailed model, which has contact elements between the bracket and archwire and between teeth, was developed to allow relative motion at the interfaces. A model with simplified interfacial conditions, which does not allow the relative motion, was also created. The stresses and displacements as results of the treatment on these two models were calculated and compared. Results The stress and displacement distributions from the detailed model were more close to reality based on the expected displacement pattern of the clinical case than from the simplified model. The maximum stresses from the two methods were also different. The highest stress from the detailed model is twice as high as from the simplified model. Conclusions The detailed model provides much more reasonable results than the simplified model. Thus, the simplified model should not be used to replace the detailed model if the stress magnitude and highest stress location are the expected outcomes.