Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Montrer: 20 | 50 | 100
Résultats 1 - 1 de 1
Filtre
Ajouter des filtres








Gamme d'année
1.
The Korean Journal of Orthodontics ; : 304-315, 2018.
Article Dans Anglais | WPRIM | ID: wpr-716753

Résumé

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to analyze initial displacement and stress distribution of the maxillofacial complex during dentoskeletal maxillary protraction with various appliance designs placed on the palatal region by using three-dimensional finite element analysis. METHODS: Six models of maxillary protraction were developed: conventional facemask (Type A), facemask with dentoskeletal hybrid anchorage (Type B), facemask with a palatal plate (Type C), intraoral traction using a Class III palatal plate (Type D), facemask with a palatal plate combined with rapid maxillary expansion (RME; Type E), and Class III palatal plate intraoral traction with RME (Type F). In Types A, B, C, and D, maxillary protraction alone was performed, whereas in Types E and F, transverse expansion was performed simultaneously with maxillary protraction. RESULTS: Type C displayed the greatest amount of anterior dentoskeletal displacement in the sagittal plane. Types A and B resulted in similar amounts of anterior displacement of all the maxillofacial landmarks. Type D showed little movement, but Type E with expansion and the palatal plate displayed a larger range of movement of the maxillofacial landmarks in all directions. CONCLUSIONS: The palatal plate served as an effective skeletal anchor for use with the facemask in maxillary protraction. In contrast, the intraoral use of Class III palatal plates showed minimal skeletal and dental effects in maxillary protraction. In addition, palatal expansion with the protraction force showed minimal effect on the forward movement of the maxillary complex.


Sujets)
Analyse des éléments finis , Technique d'expansion palatine , Traction
SÉLECTION CITATIONS
Détails de la recherche