Three‐dimensional finite element stress analysis of teeth adjacent to a traumatized incisor

Abstract

Background/Aims Dental trauma is the cause of several consequences to the injured tooth. However, the stresses and strains at adjacent teeth non‐directly impacted as a possible cause of sequelae are still unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the stress distribution in incisors adjacent to an upper central incisor when it suffers a frontal impact in order to identify a potential explanation for sequelae in non‐traumatized teeth. Materials and Methods A three‐dimensional (3D) finite element model of the maxillary central incisors, lateral incisors and canines was created from a cone‐beam scan of a patient with normal occlusion. Non‐linear dynamic impact analysis was performed, simulating the right central incisor being impacted by a steel ball with a velocity of 10 m/s. A functional chewing load (100 N) on the palatal surface of the central incisor was simulated for comparison. Displacements, strains and modified von Mises stresses were calculated for the adjacent teeth. Results During impact on the central incisor, the adjacent teeth showed root displacement. Considerable stress concentrations were observed on the palatal surfaces, proximal and labial surfaces of teeth adjacent to the traumatized incisor. Stresses in the adjacent teeth were higher than stresses calculated during functional biting. Compressive stresses were concentrated at the proximal areas of the adjacent incisors. High levels of deformation were found in the root dentin of adjacent teeth during the traumatic event. Conclusions A frontal impact on an anterior tooth generated stresses at the roots of adjacent teeth. These stresses may play a role in clinically observed sequelae of teeth adjacent to traumatized teeth.

Influence of ceramic veneer thickness and antagonist on impact stresses during dental trauma with and without a mouthguard assessed with finite element analysis

“…Recent finite element analysis studies have simulated the impact of free moving steel spheres or asphalt/ concrete blocks with an incisor. 3,10,23 The current study used the same validated modeling process, but unlike those previous studies, the current study simulated an impact against a stationary rigid surface. This condition can be compared with striking the ground when falling during sport or hitting a solid structure during a car accident.…”

“…Custom‐made mouthguards had adequate shore A hardness, which provides capacity to absorb energy generated during an impact 7 . A 4.0‐mm mouthguard thickness has high shock absorption and promotes lower stresses and strains in teeth and adjacent structures during an impact 3,9,10 . Moreover, antagonists in contact with a mouthguard can reduce mouthguard displacement.…”

“…7 A 4.0-mm mouthguard thickness has high shock absorption and promotes lower stresses and strains in teeth and adjacent structures during an impact. 3,9,10 Moreover, antagonists in contact with a mouthguard can reduce mouthguard displacement.…”

Biomechanical behavior of endocrowns vs fiber post-core-crown vs cast post-core-crown for the restoration of maxillary central incisors with 1 mm and 2 mm ferrule height

“…The maxillary central incisor is at the front of the dental arch and is most vulnerable to trauma. [ 13 ] Vilela et al [ 14 ] used the finite element method to simulate the right central incisor which subjected to external forces perpendicular to the labial and analyzed the stress distribution in the central incisor and adjacent lateral incisors, canines and alveolar bones. During impact on the central incisor, the adjacent teeth showed root displacement.…”

Splint stiffness and extension effects on a simulated avulsed permanent incisor—A patient‐specific finite element analysis

“…This segmentation was performed by using an image density thresholding tool that isolates different structures by converting grayscale values into binary images (Figure 1A). 24 The periodontal ligaments (PDL) of all six anterior teeth were created by Boolean operations, creating a tissue layer around the roots with 0.25 mm thickness. The aim of this procedure was to create a smooth PDL structure that was not possible from the CT scan with the thresholding tool due to the thin PDL space.…”