Biomechanical effect of 2 anchorages on maxillary protraction with cleft lip and palate: a finite element analysis

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2017.01.001

Abstract

Abstract: PURPOSE: To establish cranio-maxillary complex finite element models (FEMs) in cleft lip and palate (CLP) patients with miniplate and tooth-borne anchorage (MA&TA), and to investigate the biomechanical effects on maxillary protraction. METHODS: The protracting process was simulated on FEMs established from a male patient's cone beam CT (CBCT) data to analyze the displacement and stress from different appliances. RESULTS: Four FEMs of unilateral cleft lip and palate (UCLP) or bilateral cleft lip and palate (BCLP) patients' cranio-maxillary complex with MA and TA were established. The maxillary arch on both sides of the cleft moved towards the cleft side during protraction, which was more obvious in the miniplate anchorage three-dimensional finite element models(FEM-MA) than the tooth-borne anchorage three-dimensional finite element models (FEM-TA).The amount of forward, downward displacement of the inferior orbital rim, paranasal area and middle maxilla point in the FEM-MA was larger than that in the FEM-TA, while the amount of forward displacement of premaxilla and upper canine in the FEM-TA was larger than that in the FEM-MA. The FEM-MA exhibited an orthopedic effect with more favorable stress distribution on the middle maxilla point while the FEM-TA showed a dentoalveolar effect with prominent stress distribution on the upper canine point. In addition, the FEM-MA showed a larger stress distribution area and sutural stress value than did the FEM-TA. The UCLP models showed an asymmetric pattern in stress distribution and displacement, which was larger on the cleft side than that on the non-cleft side. The amount of displacement of premaxilla in the BCLP models was smaller than that in the UCLP models. CONCLUSIONS: The established models have high geomagic and biomechanical similarities. It would be more advantageous to obtain more aesthetic outcomes and better stability using the miniplate anchorage.

Key words: Finite element analysis, Cleft lip and palate, Maxillary protraction, Titanium miniplate, Dental anchorage

CLC Number:

782.2

HAN Han, XU Ya-fen, DUAN Yu-feng, LEI Yong-hua. Biomechanical effect of 2 anchorages on maxillary protraction with cleft lip and palate: a finite element analysis[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2017, 26(1): 1-6.

References

[1] 杨欣.新生儿期单侧唇腭裂术前矫治及发病情况的研究[D].西安:第四军医大学, 2009.
[2] Williams S, Andersen CE. The morphology of the potential Class Ⅲ skeletal pattern in the growing child [J]. Am J Orthod, 1986, 89(4): 302-311.
[3] Singer SL, Henry PJ, Rosenberg I. Osseointegrated implants as an adjunct to facemask therapy: a case report [J]. Angle Orthod, 2000, 70(3): 253-262.
[4] Choi BH, Zhu SJ, Kim YH. A clinical evaluation of titanium miniplates as anchors for orthodontic treatment[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2005, 128(3): 382-384.
[5] Kajiyama K, Murakami T, Suzuki A. Evaluation of the modified maxillary protractor applied to Class Ⅲ malocclusion with retruded maxilla in early mixed dentition[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2000, 118(5): 549-559.
[6] 廖珍贵, 熊晖. 微钛板支抗的临床应用和研究进展 [J].国际口腔医学杂志, 2009, 36(6): 716-718, 722.
[7] Baek SH, Kim KW, Choi JY. New treatment modality for maxillary hypoplasia in cleft patients. Protraction facemask with miniplate anchorage [J]. Angle Orthod, 2010, 80(4): 783-791.
[8] 廖胜辉.生物力学有限元分析服务中心[EB/OL].(2014-04-18)[2016-03-25].http://www.e-feature.net/content/fea.
[9] Tanne K, Miyasaka J, Yamagata Y, et al. Three-dimensional model of the human craniofacial skeleton: method and preliminary results using finite element analysis [J]. J Biomed Eng, 1988, 10(3): 246-252.
[10] Miyasaka-Hiraga J, Tanne K, Nakamura S. Finite element analysis for stresses in the craniofacial sutures produced by maxillary protraction forces applied at the upper canines [J]. Br J Orthod, 1994, 21(4): 343-348.
[11] Verrue V, Dermaut L, Verhegghe B. Three-dimensional finite element modelling of a dog skull for the simulation of initial orthopaedic displacements [J]. Eur J Orthod, 2001, 23(5): 517-527.
[12] 侯敏, 柳春明, 张海钟, 等. 虚拟骨缝在颅面复合体三维有限元模型中的构建及应用 [J].中华整形外科杂志, 2006, 22(3): 165-168.
[13] Baek SH, Shin SJ, Ahn SJ, et al. Initial effect of multiloop gewise archwire on the mandibular dentition in Class Ⅲ malocclusion subjects. A three-dimensional finite element study [J]. Eur J Orthod, 2008, 30(1): 10-15.
[14] Kim JH, Viana MA, Graber TM, et al. The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: a meta-analysis [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1999, 115(6): 675-685.
[15] Feng X, Li J, Li Y, et al. Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition [J]. Angle Orthod, 2012, 82(6): 1107-1114.
[16] Sar C, Arman-Ozcirpici A, Uckan S, et al. Comparative evaluation of maxillary protraction with or without skeletal anchorage[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2011, 139(5): 636-649.
[17] 林伟就, 邹敏, 刘小兰, 等.上颌前方牵引方向的有限元分析[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2010, 19(5): 475-479.
[18] Lee NK, Baek SH. Stress and displacement between maxillary protraction with miniplates placed at the infrazygomatic crest and the lateral nasal wall: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis [J].Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2012, 141(3): 345-351.
[19] 李湘琳, 管丽敏, 邹敏, 等. 改良式口内上颌支架式前牵引器的研制及临床应用 [J]. 中国美容医学, 2010, 19(3): 374-377.
[20] Gautam P, Valiathan A, Adhikari R. Skeletal response to maxillary protraction with and without maxillary expansion: a finite element study [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2009, 135(6): 723-728.
[21] 邹敏, 林伟就.不同前方牵引力对颅上颌复合体影响的有限元分析 [J]. 上海口腔医学, 2011, 20(1): 88-92.
[22] Zhang D, Zheng L, Wang Q, et al. Displacements prediction from 3D finite element model of maxillary protraction with and without rapid maxillary expansion in a patient with unilateral cleft palate and alveolus [J]. Biomed Eng Online, 2015, 14: 80.
[23] Yu HS, Baik HS, Sung SJ, et al. Three-dimensional finite-element analysis of maxillary protraction with and without rapid palatal expansion [J]. Eur J Orthod, 2007, 29(2): 118-125.
[24] Foersch M, Jacobs C, Wriedt S, et al. Effectiveness of maxillary protraction using facemask with or without maxillary expansion: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2015, 19(6): 1181-1192.
[25] Ahn HW, Kim KW, Yang IH, et al. Comparison of the effects of maxillary protraction using facemask and miniplate anchorage between unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate patients [J]. Angle Orthod, 2012, 82(5): 935-941.
[26] 雷勇华, 翦新春, 任毕乔. 模拟修复上颌骨裂隙后前牵引受力的三维有限元生物力学研究 [J].中南大学学报(医学版), 2009, 34(4): 295-299.
[27] Chen Z, Pan X, Shao Q, et al. Biomechanical effects on maxillary protraction of the craniofacial skeleton with cleft lip and palate after alveolar bone graft [J]. J Craniofac Surg, 2013, 24(2): 446-453.
[28] 杨正. 钛板种植体支抗前方牵引上颌骨的三维有限元分析[D].泸州: 泸州医学院, 2011.
[29] 罗晨. 应用种植体支抗辅助上颌前方牵引时颅颌面骨缝应力特征的三维有限元分析[D]. 西安: 第四军医大学, 2013.
[30] Sar C, Sahinoglu Z, Özcirpici AA, et al. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2014, 145(1): 41-54.