Dynamic resistance of teeth: technical considerations and applications of an experimental device

Fabra-Campos, H; Dalmases, F.; Buendía, Mateo; Cibrián, Rosa

doi:10.1111/j.1600-9657.1991.tb00176.x

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Due to the characteristics of the substance of the Frasaco-model the mobility of natural teeth could be imitated. The direction of the impact force corresponded to the axis of the highest fracture risk of a natural tooth in the case of a corresponding strain [5]. A horizontal strain direction of 90 8 is most efficient to verify the protection capacity of the mouthguards.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shock Absorption Capacities of Mouthguards in Different Types and Thicknesses

Bemelmanns

Pfeiffer²

2001

Int J Sports Med

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although sports mouthguards provide protection against trauma, dentoalveolar injuries can still occur with the mouthguards in place. This study examined the effect of mouthguard protection in an in vitro model. A simulated maxilla, out of a polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) arch, containing replaceable resin teeth, was used to assess the performance of different mouthguard designs. "Boil and bite" and custom-fitted mouthguards (ethylene vinyl acetate [EVA]) laminated with hard (poly-vinyl chloride [PVC]) or soft labial intermediate EVA layers were fabricated according to manufacturers' instructions. A steel ram was dropped onto the mouthguards at the maxillary incisor region. Changes in voltage, which were induced by a strain gauge at the back of the upper left incisor, were measured with an amplified voltmeter. Data were analysed by ANOVA at a significance level of 0.05. "Boil and bite" and mouthguards layered with silicone or with small hard PVC inserts of 1.5 mm thickness demonstrated less absorption and differed significantly from the other mouthguard systems (p < 0.05). Bilaminated mouthguards with hard PVC inserts of 0.8 mm, 1.5 mm or 2 mm thickness showed no significant differences to those with 1.5 mm thick (EVA) inserts. The absorption rates amounted to 33 % compared with the unprotected tooth.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The forces were adjusted to 184 N, i.e. the average fracture resistance of resin Frasaco and natural teeth [5,7] (pre-tests). The measurement of the respective mouthguards was carried out by two strains of the mouthguard with the pendulum within 5.2 seconds.…”

Section: Testing Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shock Absorption Capacities of Mouthguards in Different Types and Thicknesses

Bemelmanns

Pfeiffer²

2001

Int J Sports Med

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several experimental and numerical studies have investigated the biomechanical response of T-PDL-B and DI-B under various physiological and orthodontic loading conditions, including both static/quasi-static and dynamic loading (Clement et al, 2004;Cattaneo et al, 2009;Field et al, 2009;Chen et al, 2014Chen et al, , 2015). However, a few studies have investigated the effects of impact or high loading rate on T-PDL-B due to its lower prevalence during normal physiological condition, as well as inherent difficulties associated with experimental investigation of trauma (Fabra-Campos et al, 1991;Casas et al, 2007). Numerical methods, such as finite element analysis (FEA), have been employed as a felicitous approach to investigate traumatic dental damage, and to assess tooth behavior under traumatic impact loading (Huang et al, 2005(Huang et al, , 2006Miura and Maeda, 2008;da Silva et al, 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linear Momenta Transferred to the Dental Implant-Bone and Natural Tooth—PDL-Bone Constructs Under Impact Loading: A Comparative in-vitro and in-silico Study

Dastgerdi

Rouhi

Farzad‐Mohajeri

et al. 2020

Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During dental trauma, periodontal ligament (PDL) contributes to the stability of the tooth-PDL-bone structure. When a dental implant is inserted into the bone, the dental implant-bone construct will be more prone to mechanical damage, caused by impact loading, than the tooth-PDL-bone construct. In spite of the prevalence of such traumas, the behavioral differences between these two constructs have not been well-understood yet. The main goal of this study was to compare the momentum transferred to the tooth-PDL-bone and dental implant-bone constructs under impact loading. First, mechanical impact tests were performed on six canine mandibles of intact (N = 3) and implanted (N = 3) specimens using a custom-made drop tower apparatus, from release heights of 1, 2, and 3 cm. Next, computed tomography-based finite element models were developed for both constructs, and the transferred momenta were calculated. The experimental results indicated that, for the release heights of 1, 2, and 3 cm, the linear momenta transferred to the dental implant-bone construct were 33.1, 31.0, and 27.5% greater than those of the tooth-PDL-bone construct, respectively. Moreover, results of finite element simulations were in agreement with those of the experimental tests (error < 7.5%). This work tried to elucidate the effects of impact loading on the dental implant-bone and tooth-PDL-bone constructs using both in-vitro tests and validated in-silico simulations. The findings can be employed to modify design of the current generation of dental implants, based on the lessons one can take from the biomechanical behavior of a natural tooth structure.

show abstract

“…7,8 Recently, to understand the mobility of human dentition under the action of physiological shortterm loading, nonlinear finite element (FE) analyses were performed by several authors. [9][10][11] After determining the damping properties of the PDL by means of a reversed calculation method, these nonlinear analyses could be used to overcome the inaccuracies of approximation due to the use of simplified models.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%