上海口腔医学 ›› 2019, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (3): 264-267.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2019.03.008

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

拔牙病例隐形矫治器设计的有限元分析

王诗哲1, 潘晓岗2, 周可拓3   

  1. 1.上海交通大学医学院,上海 200025;
    2.上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院·口腔医学院 口腔正畸科,上海 200011;
    3.上海时代天使医疗器械有限公司,上海200433
  • 收稿日期:2018-12-17 修回日期:2019-03-01 出版日期:2019-06-25 发布日期:2019-08-09
  • 通讯作者: 潘晓岗,E-mail:xgpan70@126.com
  • 作者简介:王诗哲(1994-),女,硕士,E-mail:yc_wsz@163.com

Finite element analysis of clear aligners in extractive cases

WANG Shi-zhe1, PAN Xiao-gang2, ZHOU Ke-tuo3   

  1. 1.Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. Shanghai 200025;
    2.Department of Orthodontics, Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital, College of Stomatology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine. Shanghai 200011;
    3. Shanghai Angelalign Medical Device Co., LTD. Shanghai 200433, China
  • Received:2018-12-17 Revised:2019-03-01 Online:2019-06-25 Published:2019-08-09

摘要: 目的 分析隐形矫治器关闭拔牙间隙的力学特征。方法 选取拔除4颗第一前磨牙病例,设计4种隐形矫治方案,包括前牙整体内收、前牙散开内收、后牙近移、后牙散开,关闭第一前磨牙拔牙间隙,分别对其进行有限元分析。结果 前牙内收方式-前牙无间隙时,内收力更均匀作用于前牙,使其整体受到较大的力,后牙需要提供更大的支抗;前牙有间隙时,内收力首先作用于中切牙,且侧切牙和尖牙的内收力略小于中切牙,后牙需提供的支抗也更小。后牙支抗方式-后牙散开且设计近中移动,有助于保护第二前磨牙的支抗,但第一磨牙、第二磨牙可能受到更大的近移力;后牙散开且无移动设计,第二前磨牙承担更多前牙内收的支抗力,可能有更大的近倾风险;后牙不散开且无设计移动,后牙的支抗力分布更加均匀。结论 前牙内收方式选择应基于不同内收方式作用力的差异,还应考虑个体差异和临床实际;后牙移动方式选择需考虑支抗分布,避免后牙近中倾斜导致开;单步设计更小的矫治量能更好地进行轴向控制。

关键词: 隐形矫治器, 拔牙病例, 前牙内收, 后牙支抗, 有限元分析

Abstract: PURPOSE: This study analysed the mechanical features of the extraction space closure in clear aligners through mechanical research. Methods: A patient with four first premolars extraction was chosen as sample, and four plans with clear aligners for space closure were designed, including anterior retraction entirely, anterior retraction dispersedly, posterior movement mesially and posterior movement dispersedly. Finite element analysis was performed separately. Results: In anterior retraction, when there was no anterior space, the force acted on them more evenly, and the posteriors needed to provide more anchorage; when anterior space existed, the force acted on the central incisors first and largely, and the posteriors needed to provide less anchorage. In posterior anchorage, when the posteriors moved entirely with mesial movement, it might help to protect second premolar's anchorage while molars would receive more mesial force; when the posteriors moved separately without designed movement, the second premolar would undertake more anchorage and more tendency to incline mesially; when the posteriors moved entirely without designed movement, the anchorage would distribute more evenly. Conclusions: Selection of the way of retracting anteriors should be based on the difference of stress distribution in different ways in addition to individual discrepancy and clinical facts. Selection of the way of moving posteriors should be based on the distribution of anchorage as well as avoiding posterior open bite. Less amount of correction in each step has better axial control.

Key words: Clear aligners, Extractive cases, Anteriors retraction, Posterior anchorage, Finite element analysis

中图分类号: