Skeletal response to maxillary protraction with and without maxillary expansion

A finite element study

Pawan Gautam, Ashima Valiathan, Raviraj Adhikari

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this finite element study was to evaluate biomechanically 2 treatment modalities-maxillary protraction alone and in combination with maxillary expansion-by comparing the displacement of various craniofacial structures. Methods: Two 3-dimensional analytical models were developed from sequential computed tomography scan images taken at 2.5-mm intervals of a dry young skull. AutoCAD software (2004 version, Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif) and ANSYS software (version 10, Belcan Engineering Group, Cincinnati, Ohio) were used. The model consisted of 108,799 solid 10 node 92 elements, 193,633 nodes, and 580,899 degrees of freedom. In the first model, maxillary protraction forces were simulated by applying 1 kg of anterior force 30° downward to the palatal plane. In the second model, a 4-mm midpalatal suture opening and maxillary protraction were simulated. Results: Forward displacement of the nasomaxillary complex with upward and forward rotation was observed with maxillary protraction alone. No rotational tendency was noted when protraction was carried out with 4 mm of transverse expansion. A tendency for anterior maxillary constriction after maxillary protraction was evident. The amounts of displacement in the frontal, vertical, and lateral directions with midpalatal suture opening were greater compared with no opening of the midpalatal suture. The forward and downward displacements of the nasomaxillary complex with maxillary protraction and maxillary expansion more closely approximated the natural growth direction of the maxilla. Conclusions: Displacements of craniofacial structures were more favorable for the treatment of skeletal Class III maxillary retrognathia when maxillary protraction was used with maxillary expansion. Hence, biomechanically, maxillary protraction combined with maxillary expansion appears to be a superior treatment modality for the treatment of maxillary retrognathia than maxillary protraction alone.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)723-728
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume135
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-06-2009

Fingerprint

Palatal Expansion Technique
Retrognathia
Sutures
Software
Maxilla
Skull
Constriction
Tomography
Growth

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

@article{948cb0d52f3e464591c08d7ef76e980d,
title = "Skeletal response to maxillary protraction with and without maxillary expansion: A finite element study",
abstract = "Introduction: The purpose of this finite element study was to evaluate biomechanically 2 treatment modalities-maxillary protraction alone and in combination with maxillary expansion-by comparing the displacement of various craniofacial structures. Methods: Two 3-dimensional analytical models were developed from sequential computed tomography scan images taken at 2.5-mm intervals of a dry young skull. AutoCAD software (2004 version, Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif) and ANSYS software (version 10, Belcan Engineering Group, Cincinnati, Ohio) were used. The model consisted of 108,799 solid 10 node 92 elements, 193,633 nodes, and 580,899 degrees of freedom. In the first model, maxillary protraction forces were simulated by applying 1 kg of anterior force 30° downward to the palatal plane. In the second model, a 4-mm midpalatal suture opening and maxillary protraction were simulated. Results: Forward displacement of the nasomaxillary complex with upward and forward rotation was observed with maxillary protraction alone. No rotational tendency was noted when protraction was carried out with 4 mm of transverse expansion. A tendency for anterior maxillary constriction after maxillary protraction was evident. The amounts of displacement in the frontal, vertical, and lateral directions with midpalatal suture opening were greater compared with no opening of the midpalatal suture. The forward and downward displacements of the nasomaxillary complex with maxillary protraction and maxillary expansion more closely approximated the natural growth direction of the maxilla. Conclusions: Displacements of craniofacial structures were more favorable for the treatment of skeletal Class III maxillary retrognathia when maxillary protraction was used with maxillary expansion. Hence, biomechanically, maxillary protraction combined with maxillary expansion appears to be a superior treatment modality for the treatment of maxillary retrognathia than maxillary protraction alone.",
author = "Pawan Gautam and Ashima Valiathan and Raviraj Adhikari",
year = "2009",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.016",
language = "English",
volume = "135",
pages = "723--728",
journal = "American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics",
issn = "0889-5406",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

Skeletal response to maxillary protraction with and without maxillary expansion : A finite element study. / Gautam, Pawan; Valiathan, Ashima; Adhikari, Raviraj.

In: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 135, No. 6, 01.06.2009, p. 723-728.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Skeletal response to maxillary protraction with and without maxillary expansion

T2 - A finite element study

AU - Gautam, Pawan

AU - Valiathan, Ashima

AU - Adhikari, Raviraj

PY - 2009/6/1

Y1 - 2009/6/1

N2 - Introduction: The purpose of this finite element study was to evaluate biomechanically 2 treatment modalities-maxillary protraction alone and in combination with maxillary expansion-by comparing the displacement of various craniofacial structures. Methods: Two 3-dimensional analytical models were developed from sequential computed tomography scan images taken at 2.5-mm intervals of a dry young skull. AutoCAD software (2004 version, Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif) and ANSYS software (version 10, Belcan Engineering Group, Cincinnati, Ohio) were used. The model consisted of 108,799 solid 10 node 92 elements, 193,633 nodes, and 580,899 degrees of freedom. In the first model, maxillary protraction forces were simulated by applying 1 kg of anterior force 30° downward to the palatal plane. In the second model, a 4-mm midpalatal suture opening and maxillary protraction were simulated. Results: Forward displacement of the nasomaxillary complex with upward and forward rotation was observed with maxillary protraction alone. No rotational tendency was noted when protraction was carried out with 4 mm of transverse expansion. A tendency for anterior maxillary constriction after maxillary protraction was evident. The amounts of displacement in the frontal, vertical, and lateral directions with midpalatal suture opening were greater compared with no opening of the midpalatal suture. The forward and downward displacements of the nasomaxillary complex with maxillary protraction and maxillary expansion more closely approximated the natural growth direction of the maxilla. Conclusions: Displacements of craniofacial structures were more favorable for the treatment of skeletal Class III maxillary retrognathia when maxillary protraction was used with maxillary expansion. Hence, biomechanically, maxillary protraction combined with maxillary expansion appears to be a superior treatment modality for the treatment of maxillary retrognathia than maxillary protraction alone.

AB - Introduction: The purpose of this finite element study was to evaluate biomechanically 2 treatment modalities-maxillary protraction alone and in combination with maxillary expansion-by comparing the displacement of various craniofacial structures. Methods: Two 3-dimensional analytical models were developed from sequential computed tomography scan images taken at 2.5-mm intervals of a dry young skull. AutoCAD software (2004 version, Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif) and ANSYS software (version 10, Belcan Engineering Group, Cincinnati, Ohio) were used. The model consisted of 108,799 solid 10 node 92 elements, 193,633 nodes, and 580,899 degrees of freedom. In the first model, maxillary protraction forces were simulated by applying 1 kg of anterior force 30° downward to the palatal plane. In the second model, a 4-mm midpalatal suture opening and maxillary protraction were simulated. Results: Forward displacement of the nasomaxillary complex with upward and forward rotation was observed with maxillary protraction alone. No rotational tendency was noted when protraction was carried out with 4 mm of transverse expansion. A tendency for anterior maxillary constriction after maxillary protraction was evident. The amounts of displacement in the frontal, vertical, and lateral directions with midpalatal suture opening were greater compared with no opening of the midpalatal suture. The forward and downward displacements of the nasomaxillary complex with maxillary protraction and maxillary expansion more closely approximated the natural growth direction of the maxilla. Conclusions: Displacements of craniofacial structures were more favorable for the treatment of skeletal Class III maxillary retrognathia when maxillary protraction was used with maxillary expansion. Hence, biomechanically, maxillary protraction combined with maxillary expansion appears to be a superior treatment modality for the treatment of maxillary retrognathia than maxillary protraction alone.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=67649414302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=67649414302&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.016

DO - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.016

M3 - Article

VL - 135

SP - 723

EP - 728

JO - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

JF - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

SN - 0889-5406

IS - 6

ER -