
Effect of intrusive and retraction forces in labial and lingual orthodontics: A finite element study
Author(s) -
Rohan Mascarenhas,
Ameet V Revankar,
Jenny Mary Mathew,
Laxmikanth Chatra,
Akhter Husain,
Satish B Shenoy
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
apos trends in orthodontics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
eISSN - 2321-4600
pISSN - 2321-1407
DOI - 10.4103/2321-1407.127745
Subject(s) - finite element method , intrusion , orthodontics , biomechanics , incisor , maxillary central incisor , geology , structural engineering , engineering , medicine , anatomy , geochemistry
Objectives: Lingual orthodontics differs in biomechanics as compared to labial system and has biomechanical advantages. Although theoretical approaches have explained the differences between labial and lingual orthodontics, the finite element method (FEM) may be better suited to analyze these differences. This study analyzes the effect of vertical and horizontal forces together on the tooth using FEM. Materials and Methods: An extracted right maxillary central incisor was radiographed and was used to create a solid model using ANSYS. The geometric model was converted into a finite element model with the help of ANSYS software. The model consists of 27,000 elements and 30,000 nodes. Two force vectors (vertical and horizontal) were applied labially and lingually at 3 different heights- 4 mm, 5 mm and 6 mm from the incisal edge. Results: In the labial system, the net force vector passes through the center of resistance (CR) and brings about intrusion. The net force vector in lingual orthodontics does not pass through the center of resistance and produces lingual tipping of the incisors. Conclusion: Intrusion and retraction forces bring about tipping of incisors in lingual orthodontics. The same amount of intrusion and retraction forces brings about intrusion of incisors in labial orthodontics. Therefore, direction and amount of forces should be carefully and judiciously applied after taking into consideration the resultant biomechanical differences