Stress pattern generated by different post and core material combinations: A photoelastic study.

Objective: To analyze the effect of different combinations of post and core materials on stress distribution in dentin of an endodontically treated tooth. Materials and Methods: This was an experimental stress analysis study. Models were made in photoelastic material, i.e., epoxy resin. Different combinations of post and core materials used were: Glass fiber post with composite core, stainless steel post with composite core, and cast metal post and core. Stresses generated were frozen, models were sliced and viewed under circular polariscope, and photographs were taken. Stress was calculated by counting the number of fringes. Results: For the combination of glass fiber post with composite core, the shear stresses calculated were 1.196, 1.196, and 2.898 MPa in the apical, mid-root, and cervical region, respectively. For the combination of stainless steel post with composite core, the apical, mid-root and cervical stresses were 1.534, 0.511, and 2.557 MPa, respectively. For cast metal post and core, the apical, mid-root, and cervical stresses were 0.852, 0.511, and 1.534 MPa, respectively. Conclusion: The cervical region of the teeth is subjected to the highest stresses irrespective of the material used. The stainless steel post with the composite core generated the highest stress concentration in different regions. A glass fiber post generated a uniform stress distribution. A cast metal post and core combination generated lesser stress than the other combinations. The vast difference in the elastic modulus of the restorative materials can lead to nonuniform stress distribution and concentration of stresses in different areas which can have deleterious effect on the survival of already compromised teeth and restoration. Such combinations should be avoided and the material which has an elastic modulus close to that of dentin should be preferred.

Photoelastic evaluation of mandibular posterior crossbite appliance / 대한치과교정학회지

This study was undertaken to demonstrate the forces in the mandibular alveolar bone generated by activation of the mandibular posterior crossbite appliance in the treatment of buccal crossbite caused by lingual eruption of mandibular second molar. A three-dimensional photoelastic model was fabricated using a photoelastic material ( PL-3 ) to simulate alveolar bone. We observed the model from the anterior to the posterior view in a circular polariscope and recorded photographically before and after activation of the mandibular posterior crossbite appliance. The following results were obtained : 1. When the traction force was applied on the buccal surface of the mandibular second molar, stress was concentrated at the lingual alveolar crest and root apex area. The axis of rotation also was at the middle third of the buccal root surface and the root apex, so that uncontrolled tipping and a buccal traction force for the mandibular second molar were developed. 2. When the traction force was applied on the lingual surface of the mandibular second molar, more stress was observed as opposed to those situations in which the force application was on the buccal surface. In addition, stress intensity was increased below the root areas and the axis of rotation of the mandibular second molar was lost. In result, controlled tipping and intrusive tooth movements were developed. 3. When the traction force was applied on either buccal or lingual surface of the second molar, the color patterns of the anchorage unit were similar to the initial color pattern of that before the force application. So we can use the lingual arch for effective anchorage in correcting the posterior buccal crossbite. As in above mentioned results, we must avoid the rotation and uncontrolled tipping, creating occlusal interference of the malpositioned mandibular second molar when correcting posterior buccal crossbite. For this purpose, we recommend the lingual traction force on the second molar as opposed to the buccal traction.

Photoelastic evaluation of maxillary posterior crossbite appliance / 대한치과교정학회지

This study was undertaken to demonstrate the forces in the maxillary alveolar bone generated by the activation of the maxillary posterior crossbite appliance in the treatment of posterior buccal crossbite caused by buccal ectopic eruption of the maxillary second molar. A photoelastic model was fabricated using a photoelastic material ( PL-3 ) to simulate alveolar bone and ivory-colored resin teeth. The model was observed throughout the anterior and posterior view in a circular polariscope and recorded photographically before and after activation of the maxillary posterior crossbite appliance. The following conclusions were reached from this investigation : 1. When the traction force was applied on the palatal surface of the second molar, stresses were concentrated at the buccal and palatal root apices and alveolar crest area. The axis of rotation of palatal root was at the root apex and that of the buccal root was at the root 1/4 area. In this result, palatal tipping and rotating force were generated. 2. When the traction force was applied on the buccal surface of the second molar, more stresses than loading on the palatal surface were observed in the palatal and buccal root apices. Furthermore, the heavier stresses creating an intrusive force and controlled tipping force were recorded below the buccal and palatal root apices below the palatal root surface. In addition, the axis of rotation of palatal root disappeared whereas the rotation axis of the buccal root moved to the root apex from the apical 1/4 area. 3. When the traction force was simultaneously applied on the maxillary right and left second molars, the stress intensity around the maxillary first molar root area was greater than the stress generated by the only buccal traction of the maxillary right or left second molar. As in above mentioned results, we should realize that force application on the palatal surface of second molars with the maxillary posterior crossbite appliance produced rotation of the second molar and palatal traction, which may cause occlusal interference. That is to say, we have to escape the rotation and uncontrolled tipping creating occlusal interference when correcting buccal posterior crossbite. For this purpose, we recommend buccal traction rather than palatal traction force on the second molar.