2013
DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.09.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the craniomaxillary complex during maxillary protraction with bone anchorage vs conventional dental anchorage

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

3
19
1
1

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
3
19
1
1
Order By: Relevance
“…This study revealed different stress distributions between 15°to 30°and 45°protraction angulations but a minor difference between 30°a nd 45°, as well as the same results in the vector direction with a small amount of extrusion with 15°angulation and greater extrusion with 30°a nd 45°. These results are consistent with the finding of Yan et al (21) who simulated maxillary protraction with dental anchorage in the maxillary first molars. In their study, the magnitude of the applied forces was 500 g per side, and the force directions were 0, 10, 20, and 30 degrees forward and downward relative to the occlusal plane.…”
Section: A B Csupporting
confidence: 93%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…This study revealed different stress distributions between 15°to 30°and 45°protraction angulations but a minor difference between 30°a nd 45°, as well as the same results in the vector direction with a small amount of extrusion with 15°angulation and greater extrusion with 30°a nd 45°. These results are consistent with the finding of Yan et al (21) who simulated maxillary protraction with dental anchorage in the maxillary first molars. In their study, the magnitude of the applied forces was 500 g per side, and the force directions were 0, 10, 20, and 30 degrees forward and downward relative to the occlusal plane.…”
Section: A B Csupporting
confidence: 93%
“…When comparing the results quantitatively, the different modeling techniques should be taken into account . Some studies have evaluated the effects of protraction and had inconsistent or inconclusive results, and one reason for these results might be that real treatment outcomes were different from our 3D finite element model results because we did not consider the soft tissues in modeling .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…[3][4][5][6] Recent studies revealed that the biomechanic effects of maxillary protraction on the craniofacial skeleton in cleft patients have not been well elucidated clinically and experimentally by using a finite element method (FEM), unlike those of noncleft patients. [7][8][9] The underlying mechanism of finite element analysis (FEA) on maxillary protraction for patients with UCLP is still unbeknown. Our previous study 10 demonstrated that the existing fissure of the dental arch tended to be enlarged without alveolar bone grafting in UCLP patients after symmetric maxillary protraction.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Yanx et al analyzed the bio mechanical effects on the cranio maxillary complex of bone during maxillary protraction. 4 The direction of forces were 0*, 10*, 20*and 30* forward and downward relative to the occlusal plane.…”
Section: Fem In Maxillary Protractionmentioning
confidence: 94%