IADR Abstract Archives
3D Teeth Model With Viscoelastic Periodontal Ligament: Finite Element Analysis
Objectives: This study aimed to compare stress concentration areas in a three-dimensional (3D) model of first upper premolar (UP) and adjacent teeth, with viscoelastic or non-viscoelastic periodontal ligament (PL).
Methods: A computed tomography was imported to an image processing program to create the teeth model which was exported to a 3D modeling program. Mechanical properties and loading conditions were prescribed in finite element analysis program (ABAQUS Inc). Axial and oblique loads were applied simulating realistic conditions: Loading I- 90-N load parallel to the long axis of the UP at the points A and B and on the mesial marginal ridge (30-N load at each point); Loading II- axial 90-N load on the mesial longitudinal ridge on UP; Loading III- oblique 45-N load (45o) at the point A on UP; Loading IV- oblique 45-N load (45o) at the point B on UP. Maximum and minimum principal stress (MPa) was evaluated for enamel and bone tissue, respectively.
Results: Compression stress was observed on the side of load application, and tensile stress was observed on the opposite side. Tensile stress was concentrated mainly at dentin-enamel-junction (DEJ) and in the alveolar insertion bone. Higher tensile stress was found in the mesial proximal contact and in the non-viscoelastic PL models. Higher compressive stress was observed in the bone of non-viscoelastic PL models. Loading II produced the highest tensile stress in proximal contacts (mesial= +67.00 to +69.00; distal +42.00 to +43.00) regardless the PL viscoelasticity. Loading IV showed highest tensile stress at DEJ mainly in the buccal surface (+8.00 to +10.00). Non-viscoelastic models presented the highest compressive stress in bone tissue (-1.06 to -4.52).
Conclusions: The viscoelastic property is related with lower stress dissipation among adjacent teeth and to bone tissue but did not influence stress distribution at DEJ.
Methods: A computed tomography was imported to an image processing program to create the teeth model which was exported to a 3D modeling program. Mechanical properties and loading conditions were prescribed in finite element analysis program (ABAQUS Inc). Axial and oblique loads were applied simulating realistic conditions: Loading I- 90-N load parallel to the long axis of the UP at the points A and B and on the mesial marginal ridge (30-N load at each point); Loading II- axial 90-N load on the mesial longitudinal ridge on UP; Loading III- oblique 45-N load (45o) at the point A on UP; Loading IV- oblique 45-N load (45o) at the point B on UP. Maximum and minimum principal stress (MPa) was evaluated for enamel and bone tissue, respectively.
Results: Compression stress was observed on the side of load application, and tensile stress was observed on the opposite side. Tensile stress was concentrated mainly at dentin-enamel-junction (DEJ) and in the alveolar insertion bone. Higher tensile stress was found in the mesial proximal contact and in the non-viscoelastic PL models. Higher compressive stress was observed in the bone of non-viscoelastic PL models. Loading II produced the highest tensile stress in proximal contacts (mesial= +67.00 to +69.00; distal +42.00 to +43.00) regardless the PL viscoelasticity. Loading IV showed highest tensile stress at DEJ mainly in the buccal surface (+8.00 to +10.00). Non-viscoelastic models presented the highest compressive stress in bone tissue (-1.06 to -4.52).
Conclusions: The viscoelastic property is related with lower stress dissipation among adjacent teeth and to bone tissue but did not influence stress distribution at DEJ.
2110317_File000000.jpg
2110317_File000001.jpg