AIM: To evaluate the stress changes in the maxilla during fixed functional appliance use using three-dimensional finite element method (FEM) stress analysis. SETTINGS AND SAMPLE POPULATION: A three-dimensional finite element model of the maxilla was constructed using the images generated from the cone-beam computed tomography of a patient treated for Class II malocclusion with a fixed functional orthodontic appliance. The FEM was used to study the stress changes seen in the maxilla, which were evaluated in the form of highest von Mises stress and maximum principal stress before and after the application of fixed functional appliance. RESULTS: Higher areas of stress were seen in the model of the maxilla with the fixed functional appliance (140 MPa) compared to that in the resting stage (58.99 MPa). CONCLUSIONS: An increase in the maximum principal stress and von Mises stress in the posterior regions of the maxilla and maxillary teeth was seen. The stresses seen were double than that without the appliance. A high distalization force on the maxilla was seen with the fixed functional appliance.

Aim: Aim of this study was to evaluate and compare stress transfer at bone implant interface in customized root form implant and conventional endosseous implant. Materials and methodology: A three-dimensional finite element model of Emulate implant and conventional endosseous implant (nobel active 4.2X11.5mm) was generated. The implants were restored with metal ceramic crown and subjected to 20 Mpa of axial applied stress. Resolved stresses were examined at four heights along the implant bone interface. Results: In conventional endosseous implant with 100 % osseointegration higher stresses (1.01-0.12 MPa) were concentrated on the facial surface of crest of implant. The stresses decreased from junction of cortical bone and trabecular bone to the apex of implant (0.36 – 0.12 MPa). The maximum stresses on emulate implant with 100 % osseointegration were at the facial surface of the crest of implant (0.05 MPa) which were comparatively lesser than conventional endosseous implant (1.01 MPa). Conclusion: The degree of osseointegration affected the stress levels or distributions around both implants. Crestal stresses were always higher than apical stress. When the implants were 100% osseointegrated, then stresses were higher on conventional endosseous implant while in case of 50% osseointegration, stresses were higher on emulate implant.