Download The effect of Alexander, Gianelly, Roth, and MBT bracket systems on anterior retraction: a 3-dimensional finite element study

Clinical Oral Investigations
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-019-03016-6
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
The effect of Alexander, Gianelly, Roth, and MBT bracket systems
on anterior retraction: a 3-dimensional finite element study
Mauro Cozzani 1 & Donia Sadri 2 & Ludovica Nucci 3 & Parsa Jamilian 4 & Amir Parham Pirhadirad 5 & Abdolreza Jamilian 6
Received: 8 November 2018 / Accepted: 10 July 2019
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract
Objectives The aims of this study were to compare the effect of 4 bracket systems including Alexander, Roth, MBT, and Gianelly
on upper anterior retraction and to quantify the amount of torque loss ratio in sliding mechanics by help of a 3-dimensional (3D)
finite element method.
Method and materials 3D FEM models were constructed in order to simulate anterior incisor retraction in first premolar
extraction case. Displacement, stress, and strain on the incisal edge and apex of maxillary central incisor were calculated when
1-, 2-, and 3-N retraction forces were applied. Torque loss ratio was calculated by measuring the displacement of the teeth at
crown tip and root apex in all 4 bracket systems on upper central incisor.
Results Uncontrolled lingual crown tipping of the incisor was observed in all bracket systems. The crown moved lingually by 9.5 μm
and the root labially by 4.5 μm in MBT system with 3-N retraction force. The amount of crown movement was 8 μm and the root
displacement was 4 μm in Gianelly system with the same retraction force. Torque loss ratio was 1.46 in Alexander and Gianelly with 3N retraction force. However, the amount of torque loss ratio was 1.47 in MBT and Roth with the same retraction force.
Conclusions and clinical Relevance Uncontrolled tipping was the least in Gianelly and was the highest in MBT. The amount of
torque loss ratio was the lowest in Gianelly and Alexander systems and the amount of torque loss ratio was the highest in MBT
system.
Keywords Finite element analysis . Torque . Orthodontic brackets . Upper anterior segment . Biomechanics
Introduction
Retraction of the upper anterior dental segment is one of the
main stages for correction of malocclusion. Anterior retraction
* Donia Sadri
[email protected]
Mauro Cozzani
[email protected]
can be achieved using one of the two methods, either closing
loops (frictionless mechanics) or sliding mechanics (frictional
mechanics). Various studies have been carried out to evaluate
the numerous biomechanical factors affecting tooth
2
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, Faculty of
Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University,
Tehran, Iran
3
Dental School, Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical
and Dental Specialties, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli,
Naples, Italy
4
International Baccalaureate Program, Danube International School,
Vienna, Austria
5
Department of Bio Medical Engineering, Faculty of Bio Medical
Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Cranio Maxillofacial
Research Center, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
6
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cranio
Maxillofacial Research Center, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic
Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Ludovica Nucci
[email protected]
Parsa Jamilian
[email protected]
Amir Parham Pirhadirad
[email protected]
Abdolreza Jamilian
[email protected]
1
Istituto Giuseppe Cozzani, La Spezia, Italy
Clin Oral Invest
Table 1
The material parameters used in the FE model
Material
Young’s modulus (MPa)
Poisson’s ratio
Tooth
20000
0.3
PDL
0.05
0.3
Alveolar bone
Composite
2000
14200
0.3
0.3
Bracket
Arch wire
200000
200000
0.3
0.3
movement in sliding mechanics, such as center of resistance
of upper incisors, center of resistance of anterior arch segment,
the amount of retraction force, friction, and flexural rigidity of
the arch wire [1–8].
Torque loss is an important side effect of incisor retraction.
It is very critical and important to maintain torque during
anterior retraction, for which the point of force application
plays a vital role [9]. Different bracket systems with different
prescriptions have been developed and are being employed in
order to achieve the most appropriate torque in upper incisors.
Nevertheless, the effect of various bracket systems and arch
wire on anterior tooth movement in sliding mechanics has not
been fully understood.
The objectives of this study were to determine the effect of
4 bracket systems including Alexander, Gianelly, Roth, and
MBT and arch wire dimension on anterior tooth movement
and also to quantify the amount of torque loss during anterior
retraction by means of a 3-dimensional finite element (3D
FEM) model.
Material and methods
A 3D model of maxilla was prepared according to the method
described by Tominaga et al. [4]. The image of 12 maxillary
teeth including incisors, canines, and premolars, first and second molars, was constructed by a cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanner (GE Medical Systems, HiSpeed
QX/i, Milwaukee, WI, USA). These data were exported to 3D
Table 2 Configuration of
Alexander, Roth, MBT, and
Gianelly systems
Wire
Bracket Slot
Prescription
Central incisor
Lateral incisor
Cuspid
2nd premolar
1st molar
image processing software (Mimics Innovation Suite
17.0.0.435 Research (Materialise, Leuven, Belgium). The
3D solid model along with alveolar bone, bracket design,
and wire was formed and exported to a 3D FEM program
(ABAQUS 6.10 software) using FE analysis preprocess and
postprocess software (Dassault systems). Periodontal ligament was considered as a uniform structure with 0.2-mm
width at all points. Bilateral maxillary first premolars were
not constructed. Canines were replaced in the tooth space of
first premolars. FE was designed in order to simulate anterior
incisor retraction in first premolar extraction case. Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio for the tooth, periodontal ligament, alveolar bone, composite, bracket, and arch wire were
inserted according to Tominaga et al. [10]. Each bracket prescription was created by the same software and according to
the manufacturer’s guidelines on the incorporated tip and
torque. These material parameters are shown in Table 1.
A FE mesh was constructed to make a node-to-node connection between tooth, periodontal ligament, and alveolar
bone. A FE mesh of the wire was also generated separately
to allow the wire to slide through the bracket slots. The elements used to recreate the materials were linear tetrahedral
type defined by C3D4. Four 3D solid models, including
Alexander, Roth, MBT, were designed to allow the sliding
of the wire through the 4 bracket systems with the following
prescriptions which are shown in Table 2 in accordance with
the manufacturer’s instructions.
Force application and incisor retraction
The FE model was restricted in 6 degrees of freedom at the
bottom of the alveolar bone to avoid sliding movement of the
entire model and the coefficient of friction between the wire
and the brackets was set at 0.2. Under these conditions, horizontal retraction forces of 1, 2, and 3 N were applied on each
end of arch wire respectively [11]. FEM analysis was performed using a 3D FE program (ABAQUS 6.10 software).
The incisal edge and the apex of maxillary central incisor were
selected as the region of interest in this research and the values
for maximum stress, strain, and displacement were calculated
0.018 × 0.022
0.018 × 0.025(Ant)
0.017 × 0.025
0.018 × 0.025
0.019 × 0.025
0.022 × 0.028
0.022 × 0.028(Post)
Gianelly
Torque
Tip
12
5
8
9
0
7
0
0
0
0
Alexander
Torque
15
9
−3
−8
− 10
Roth
Torque
12
8
0
−7
− 14
Tip
5
9
10
4
−6
Tip
5
9
11
0
0
MBT
Torque
17
10
0
−7
− 14
Tip
4
8
8
0
0
Clin Oral Invest
Table 3
The maximum amount of stress (Pa), displacement (μm), and strain on the maxillary central incisor with 1- until 3-N retraction force
Newton brand
Gianelly (bidimensional)
Alexander
Roth
MBT
1
2
3
S
D
E
S
D
E
S
D
E
1.355 × 10−1
1.946 × 10−1
1.399 × 10−1
1.396 × 10−1
2.6
2.9
3.1
3.1
6.752 × 10−7
9.642 × 10−7
6.981 × 10−7
6.971 × 10−7
2.711 × 10−1
3.892 × 10−1
2.798 × 10−1
2.793 × 10−1
5.2
5.9
6.3
6.3
1.35 × 10−6
1.928 × 10−6
1.39 × 10−6
1.394 × 10−6
4.066 × 10−1
5.838 × 10−1
4.197 × 10−1
4.189 × 10−1
7.9
8.8
9.4
9.4
2.025 × 10−6
2.893 × 10−6
2.095 × 10−6
2.092 × 10−6
in each bracket systems for each retraction force in 4 bracket
systems.
In this study, linear solver was used and for a better understanding the teeth movement, all of the displacements were
magnified 56 times, and the displacements of the central incisor were focused on. Displacement, von Misses stresses, and
strain on the incisal edge and root apex of upper central incisor
in 4 bracket systems were compared. The torque loss ratio was
calculated by measuring the difference between the initial displacement of crown tip and root apex, if both the crown tip
and root apex moved equally, it showed the translation, i.e.,
the bodily movement. The torque loss ratio was also calculated by adding the distance between the initial displacement of
crown tip and root apex, if both the crown tip and root apex
moved unequally which shows uncontrolled tipping. Then
this amount was divided to the amount of crown movement
in order to obtain torque loss ratio [9, 12].
Results
After analyzing models, the amount of displacement, von
Misses stresses, and strain were calculated for incisal edge
and root apex of central maxillary incisors in four bracket
systems. The peak values of displacement micrometer (μm),
stresses (Pa), and strain on incisal edge of maxillary central
incisor are shown under continuous retraction forces of 1, 2,
and 3 N for 4 bracket systems including Alexander, Roth,
MBT, and Gianelly (bidimensional technique) in Table 3.
Full FE model including force vectors and further boundary conditions can be seen in Fig. 1. This study showed that
the amount of incisal edge displacement and apex root movement were increased by enhancing the retraction force from 1
to 3 N Figs. 2, 3, and 4.
The amount of incisal edge displacement and apex movement were increased from 1 to 3 N of retraction forces in
Gianelly, Alexander, Roth, and MBT respectively. Gianelly
had uncontrolled tipping, with 8 μm of crown movement
and 4 μm of root apex in the direction of force application
with 3 N of retraction forces. MBT had uncontrolled tipping,
with 3 μm of crown movement and 4.5 μm of root apex in the
direction of force application with 3 N of retraction forces.
Gianelly had the lowest uncontrolled tipping and MBT had
the highest tipping in all 1–3 N of retraction forces on the apex
and incisal edge Figures 2, 3, 4, and 5..
In this study, all of the teeth had uncontrolled tipping; in
other words, crown and root apex moved unequally; therefore,
the torque loss ratio was calculated by adding the distance
between the initial displacement of crown tip and root apex.
Then this amount was divided to the amount of crown movement. The amount of torque loss ratio in all bracket systems
with 1, 2, and 3 N of retraction force was seen in Fig. 6. It
shows the torque loss ratio was 1.464 and 1.465 with 3-N
retraction force in Alexander and Gianelly respectively and
it was equally the same. However, MBT had the highest
torque loss ratio and this amount was 1.478 with the same
retraction force. Figures 7 and 8 show incisor displacement
in MBT and Gianelly with 3 N of retraction force respectively.
Discussion
Fig. 1 Full FE model including force vectors and further boundary
conditions
One of the major challenges is to clarify the complexities
involved in the response of teeth to the forces and the moments during anterior retraction. Finite element analysis was
Clin Oral Invest
Fig. 2 The amount of incisal edge
of central maxillary incisor
movement with 1- until 3-N retraction force in 4 bracket systems
selected for the current study because of the complexity of the
clinical design, variability in dental differences, multiplicity of
elements needed to be matched, individual response to force
applied, and the potential effect of other variables. Moreover,
FE is nearest that one possibly can get in simulating the oral
environment in vitro and the actual displacement, stress, and
strain can be measured [9, 13]. This model simulates a first
premolar extraction case. The canines were retracted individually in place of first bicuspid extraction cases and then anterior retraction was started to simulate the real condition on
clinical situation.
In this study, three levels of force (1, 2, 3 N) were applied
because different techniques utilize different level of force for
en masse and/or incisor retraction.
–
–
Gianelly (bidimensional technique) utilizes a sliding mechanic: 3 N applied with a superelastic NiTi coil for incisor retraction;
Alexander utilizes a .018 × .025 closing loop for incisor
retraction: We estimated on the incisors a force at the
activation around 3 N and a decay to 1 N during the
deactivation period;
Fig. 3 The amount of apex root
movement of central maxillary
incisor with 1- until 3-N retraction
force in 4 bracket systems
–
–
MBT utilizes a sliding mechanic: an Alastik module with
1 N for en masse retraction. We estimated a force of 1 N
on the incisors;
Roth utilized a double keyhole loop in a .019 × .025 wire
for en masse retraction, more recently, a sliding mechanic
with 1.5 N applied with a NiTi superelastic coil: We estimated, for this set-up, a force of 1 N on the incisor.
This study showed that each bracket system has a significant impact on anterior tooth retraction in sliding mechanics.
In this study, sliding method was used for anterior retraction
and in sliding mechanics, friction occurs at the interference
between bracket slot and arch wire. The amount of incisal
edge displacement and apex movement were increased by
enhancing the force. The minimum displacement on incisal
edge of upper central incisor was found in Gianelly system
and the maximum displacement was shown in MBT system.
The results of our study revealed that the anterior teeth exhibited various amount of uncontrolled tipping. Uncontrolled tipping was observed as there was more of crown movement
than of a root apex in the direction of force application.
MBT had more of crown movement (9.5 μm) than of a root
Clin Oral Invest
Fig. 4 The amount of incisal edge
of central maxillary incisor with
1- until 3-N retraction force in 4
bracket systems
Fig. 5 The amount of apex root
movement of central maxillary
incisor with 1- until 3-N retraction
force in 4 bracket systems
apex displacement (4.5 μm) in the sagittal plane which results
in maximum uncontrolled tipping with 3 N of retraction force.
The amount of uncontrolled tipping was increased from
Gianelly, Alexander, and Roth to MBT respectively in all
retraction forces Figs. 3 and 4.
There were some differences in the amount of uncontrolled tipping between the four bracket systems during
anterior retraction. This finding is due to this fact that
the play between arch wire and bracket slot was greater
in MBT than Gianelly. The existence of play between
Fig. 6 The amount of torque loss
on the central maxillary incisor
with 1- until 3-N retraction force
in 4 bracket systems
bracket slot and arch wire should be considered to predict the tooth movement. Similarly, Tominaga [14]
found that the play between the wire and the bracket
slot has an excessive impact on the anterior tooth
movement.
FE simulations clarified the type of tooth movement in 4
bracket systems, although friction arises at the bracket arch
wire interface in sliding mechanics. Many measurements of
the friction force have been carried out for various combinations of brackets and arch wires. The friction dissipates some
Clin Oral Invest
Fig. 7 Anterior retraction after 3 N of retraction force in MBT system
of the force and reduces the speed of tooth movement [5, 6,
15, 16].
The torque loss was calculated by adding the distance between the initial displacement of crown tip and root apex, if
both the crown tip and root apex moved unequally. Then this
amount was divided to the amount of crown movement. In
this study, the crown of upper incisors had uncontrolled tipping; in other words, crown tip and root moved unequally.
Figure 6 shows the amount of torque loss ratio in 4 bracket
systems with 1 until 3 N of retraction force. The amount of
torque loss ratio was the lowest one in Gianelly and Alexander
Fig. 8 Anterior retraction after 3 N of retraction force in Gianelly system
systems and they were almost the same. The amount of torque
loss was highest in MBT.
FEM is a suitable method, but it has its limitations. It cannot perfectly represent the human skull and the result of the
current research is only valid for patients with similar root
lengths, root angulations, root morphology, bone density,
crown sizes etc. It is necessary to consider anatomic parameters that is why a clinical study is needed to confirm these
findings from this FE study.
The results only represent the very initial response of the
system to the force application (THE crown moved lingually
Clin Oral Invest
by 9.5 μm in MBT system with 3-N retraction force.) and not
the actual process of gap closure, where other factors (especially rigidity of the different arch wire dimensions) may also
play a role in torque control (a negative curve of spee as a
result of a less rigid arch wire during gap closure will also
result in loss of torque of the incisors). It should, also, be taken
into consideration that brackets and wires’ nominal values
differ from real measures; moreover, real measures are different from company to company [17].
5.
6.
7.
Conclusion
&
The amount of incisal edge and root movement were increased by enhancing the amount of force from 1 to 3 N of
retraction force in all bracket systems.
Gianelly had the lowest displacement on the incisal edge
and root apex of upper central incisor in 1, 2, and 3 N of
retraction force and MBT had the highest movement on
the incisal edge and root apex of the same tooth in the
same retraction forces.
Uncontrolled tipping was the least in Gianelly and was the
highest one in MBT.
Gianelly and Alexander systems had the lowest torque
loss ratio and MBT had the highest one.
&
&
&
8.
9.
10.
11.
Acknowledgments The authors wish to express appreciation to support
of the American Orthodontics (USA) and Dentaurum Company
(Germany) for supporting the bracket geometry basis for the FE models.
12.
Compliance with ethical standards
13.
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
14.
Ethical approval This article does not contain any studies with human
participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
15.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
Sia S, Koga Y, Yoshida N (2007) Determining the center of resistance of maxillary anterior teeth subjected to retraction forces in
sliding mechanics. An in vivo study. Angle Orthod 77(6):999–
1003. https://doi.org/10.2319/112206-478
Sia S, Shibazaki T, Koga Y, Yoshida N (2009) Experimental determination of optimal force system required for control of anterior
tooth movement in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofac
Orthop 135(1):36–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.034
Moore JC, Waters NE (1993) Factors affecting tooth movement in
sliding mechanics. Eur J Orthod 15(3):235–241
Barlow M, Kula K (2008) Factors influencing efficiency of sliding
mechanics to close extraction space: a systematic review. Orthod
16.
17.
Craniofac Res 11(2):65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.
2008.00421.x
Kojima Y, Fukui H (2010) Numeric simulations of en-masse space
closure with sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
138(6):702 e701–702 e706; discussion 702-704. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.06.015
Perillo L, Sorrentino R, Apicella D, Quaranta A, Gherlone E,
Zarone F, Ferrari M, Aversa R, Apicella A (2010) Nonlinear
visco-elastic finite element analysis of porcelain veneers: a
submodelling approach to strain and stress distributions in adhesive
and resin cement. J Adhes Dent 12(5):403–413. https://doi.org/10.
3290/j.jad.a18394
Reimann S, Keilig L, Jaeger A, Bourauel C (2007) Biomechanical
finite-element investigation of the position of the centre of resistance of the upper incisors. Eur J Orthod 29(3):219–224. https://doi.
org/10.1093/ejo/cjl086
Matsui S, Caputo AA, Chaconas SJ, Kiyomura H (2000) Center of
resistance of anterior arch segment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
118(2):171–178. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2000.103774
Parashar A, Aileni KR, Rachala MR, Shashidhar NR, Mallikarjun
V, Parik N (2014) Torque loss in en-masse retraction of maxillary
anterior teeth using miniimplants with force vectors at different
levels: 3D FEM study. J Clin Diagn Res 8(12):ZC77–ZC80.
https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/10099.5353
Tominaga JY, Ozaki H, Chiang PC, Sumi M, Tanaka M, Koga Y,
Bourauel C, Yoshida N (2014) Effect of bracket slot and archwire
dimensions on anterior tooth movement during space closure in
sliding mechanics: a 3-dimensional finite element study. Am J
Orthod Dentofac Orthop 146(2):166–174. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ajodo.2014.04.016
Kusy RP, Whitley JQ, Prewitt MJ (1991) Comparison of the frictional coefficients for selected archwire-bracket slot combinations
in the dry and wet states. Angle Orthod 61(4):293–302. https://doi.
org/10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0293:COTFCF>2.0.CO;2
Nyashin YI, Nyashin M, Osipenko M et al (1999) Center of resistance and center of rotation of a tooth:the definitions, conditions of
existence, properties. Russ J Bioorg Chem 1(1):1–11
Perillo L, Jamilian A, Shafieyoon A, Karimi H, Cozzani M (2015)
Finite element analysis of miniscrew placement in mandibular alveolar bone with varied angulations. Eur J Orthod 37(1):56–59.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju006
Tominaga JY, Chiang PC, Ozaki H, Tanaka M, Koga Y, Bourauel
C, Yoshida N (2012) Effect of play between bracket and archwire
on anterior tooth movement in sliding mechanics: a threedimensional finite element study. J Dent Biomech 3:
1758736012461269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1758736012461269
Nucera R, Gatto E, Borsellino C, Aceto P, Fabiano F, Matarese G,
Perillo L, Cordasco G (2014) Influence of bracket-slot design on the
forces released by superelastic nickel-titanium alignment wires in
different deflection configurations. Angle Orthod 84(3):541–547.
https://doi.org/10.2319/060213-416.1
Crincoli V, Perillo L, Di Bisceglie MB, Balsamo A, Serpico V,
Chiatante F, Pappalettere C, Boccaccio A (2013) Friction forces
during sliding of various brackets for malaligned teeth: an in vitro
study. ScientificWorldJournal 2013:871423. https://doi.org/10.
1155/2013/871423
Lombardo L, Arreghini A, Bratti E, Mollica F, Spedicato G, Merlin
M, Fortini A, Siciliani G (2015) Comparative analysis of real and
ideal wire-slot play in square and rectangular archwires. Angle
Orthod 85(5):848–858. https://doi.org/10.2319/072214-510.1
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.