World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A Three-dimensional Finite Element Study of Stress and Strain Distribution around Orthodontic Mini-implants of Varying Geometry

Diptiman Shukla, Mohsin A Wani, Thakur P Chaturvedi, Rakesh Koul, Mohd Amir, Rohit Bahri

Keywords : Anchorage, Cancellous bone, Cortical bone, Finite element analysis, Finite element method, Orthodontic mini-implants, Strain, Stress, Temporary skeletal anchorage devices, von Mises stress

Citation Information : Shukla D, Wani MA, Chaturvedi TP, Koul R, Amir M, Bahri R. A Three-dimensional Finite Element Study of Stress and Strain Distribution around Orthodontic Mini-implants of Varying Geometry. World J Dent 2024; 15 (3):191-200.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2394

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-04-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The present study aims to generate finite element (FE) models of mini-implants (MIs) inserted in the bone at varying angles, with the purpose of examining the stress and strain distribution patterns within the bone encompassing an MI in response to forces of different magnitudes and applied in different directions. This investigation involves the digitization of the aforementioned models, which will enable a comprehensive analysis of the biomechanical behavior of MIs in bone. Materials and methods: A comprehensive three-dimensional representation of a 35-mm segment of the alveolar bone located in the posterior maxilla, inclusive of a self-drilling titanium MI, was developed. Further models were produced, incorporating diverse lengths, diameters, and implant angulations. The Analysis Software (ANSYS) workbench version 19.1 FE analysis (FEA) program was utilized to calculate the stresses and strains on the MIs with insertion angles of 30 and 60°, diameters of 1.4 and 2 mm, and lengths of 6, 8, 10, and 12 mm. An analysis was conducted to determine the stress distribution at the interface between the implant and bone, using a simulated constant orthodontic force of 2 N, applied in different directions to simulate clinical situations. Results: The stress distribution in cortical and cancellous bone surrounding MIs with dimensions of 1.4 × 6 and 1.4 × 8 mm, inserted at angles of 30 and 60° indicated that the maximum stress value was 61.92 MPa, while the minimum stress value was 20.26 MPa. Furthermore, the stress distribution in cortical bone was significantly higher for the 30° insertion angulation compared to the 60° insertion angulation for MIs with a dimension of 1.4 mm. The minimum stress distribution values obtained for the 30° insertion angulation were 6.61, 6.19, and 2.49 MPa for the three directions of force application calculated. The stress distribution in cancellous bone was minimal, ranging from 0.11 to 0.58 MPa, under altered directions of forces applied during simulated orthodontic tooth movement. Conclusion: The impact of varied insertion angles of orthodontic MIs (OMIs) on stress values and distribution in bone and implant is significant. A 1.4 mm MI generates greater von Mises stress, particularly when inserted at a 30° angle, with strenuous stress at the neck and head of the MI, regardless of its length (6 or 8 mm). Moderate stress levels were observed for cortical bone stresses under horizontal loading for 1.4 mm MIs. Increasing the insertion angle from 30 to 60° resulted in decreased stress concentration around the implant threads. The evaluation of von Mises stress within cancellous bone yielded negligible results due to low-stress transmission. Clinical significance: With the potential to enhance orthodontic treatment through skeletal anchorage, OMIs have gained global acceptance, and since the maintenance of MI permanence is contingent upon its stability, which is significantly impacted by the variables, such as length, diameter, and insertion angle, the utilization of FEA proves to be a more precise and dependable method for the simulation of such meticulous biological and biomechanical conditions.


PDF Share
  1. Daokar SS, Daokar SG. Implants in orthodontics. Int J Oral Implantol Clin Res 2015;6(1):17–19. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10012-1130
  2. Tsai CC, Chang HP, Pan CY, et al. A prospective study of factors associated with orthodontic mini-implant survival. J Oral Sci 2016;58(4):515–521. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.16-0145
  3. Lai TT, Chen MH. Factors affecting the clinical success of orthodontic anchorage: experience with 266 temporary anchorage devices. J Dent Sci 2014;9(1):49–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2013.02.010
  4. Lu Y, Chang S, Ye J, et al. Analysis on the stress of the bone surrounding mini-implant with different diameters and lengths under torque. Biomed Mater Eng 2015;26(Suppl 1):S541–S545. DOI: 10.3233/BME-151344
  5. Singh S, Mogra S, Shetty VS, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength, stability, and stress distribution in orthodontic anchorage: a conical, self-drilling miniscrew implant system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141(3):327–336. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.07.022
  6. Sivamurthy G, Sundari S. Stress distribution patterns at mini-implant site during retraction and intrusion–a three-dimensional finite element study. Prog Orthod 2016;17:4. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-016-0117-1
  7. Chatzigianni A, Keilig L, Duschner H, et al. Comparative analysis of numerical and experimental data of orthodontic mini-implants. Eur J Orthod 2011;33(5):468–475. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr097
  8. Creekmore TD, Eklund MK. The possibility of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1983;17(4):266–269.
  9. Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1997;31(11):763–767.
  10. Vijayalakshmi PS, Veereshi AS, Jayade VP, et al. Finite element analysis of stress and strain distribution in the bone around the implants used for orthodontic anchorage. J Ind Orthod Soc 2012;46(4):175–182. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1085
  11. Frost HM. A 2003 update of bone physiology and Wolff's Law for clinicians. Angle Orthod 2004;74(1):3–15. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0003:AUOBPA>2.0.CO;2
  12. Morais LS, Serra GG, Muller CA, et al. Titanium alloy mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage: immediate loading and metal ion release. Acta Biomater 2007;3(3):331–339. DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2006.10.010
  13. Zhang Y, Zhang D, Feng CJ, et al. [A three-dimensional finite element analysis for the biomechanical characteristics of orthodontic anchorage micro-implant]. Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue 2005;14(3):281–283.
  14. Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M, et al. Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;124(4):373–378. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00565-1
  15. Motoyoshi M, Yano S, Tsuruoka T, et al. Biomechanical effect of abutment on stability of orthodontic mini-implant. A finite element analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16(4):480–485. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01130.x
  16. Huang QW, Wang LP, Wang JY. Mechanical properties of artificial materials for bone repair. J Shanghai Jiaotong Univ 2014;19(6):675–680. DOI: 10.1007/s12204-014-1565-8
  17. Jiang L, Kong L, Li T, et al. Optimal selections of orthodontic mini-implant diameter and length by biomechanical consideration: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Adv Eng Softw 2009;40(11):1124–1130. DOI: 10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.05.008
  18. Sadr Haghighi AH, Pouyafar V, Navid A, et al. Investigation of the optimal design of orthodontic mini-implants based on the primary stability: a finite element analysis. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospect 2019;13(2):85–89. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2019.013
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.