Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ir.swu.ac.th/jspui/handle/123456789/12457
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAnasart K.
dc.contributor.authorPattarahirun A.
dc.contributor.authorSuzuki E.Y.
dc.contributor.authorSuzuki B.
dc.contributor.authorSukjamsri C.
dc.date.accessioned2021-04-05T03:03:32Z-
dc.date.available2021-04-05T03:03:32Z-
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85069227722
dc.identifier.urihttps://ir.swu.ac.th/jspui/handle/123456789/12457-
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85069227722&doi=10.1145%2f3326172.3326208&partnerID=40&md5=d8fac59c0c72fd7d9e840f9491409490
dc.description.abstractMalocclusion Class II is a poor-bite condition when the lower first molar situates more posteriorly than the upper first molar. To restore the normality of bite condition, the upper molar is often moved distally using an orthodontic device. The objective of this study was to predict and compare the outcomes of two different orthodontic devices both equipped with miniscrews. The first device, called a buccal mini-implant, has miniscrews placed on the alveolar bone on the buccal surface. The second device, called an indirect palatal miniscrew anchorage and distalization appliance or iPANDA, has miniscrews inserted along the midline of the palatal bone. For comparison purpose, a three-dimensional (3D) model of both devices was virtually attached to a 3D model of the upper teeth with maxillary bone and periodontal ligament. A force of 200g was applied through the devices to simulate a recommended distalization force. Teeth displacement, stress in both miniscrews and surrounding bone, and micromotion at miniscrew-bone interface were measured using finite element method. The findings show that the iPANDA device led to a higher molar distalization and higher micronmotion compared to the buccal mini-implant device. Stress obtained from the iPANDA device was also found to be higher, however, it was relatively too small to damage both the miniscrew and surrounding bone. © 2019 Association for Computing Machinery.
dc.subject3D modeling
dc.subjectBiomedical engineering
dc.subjectBone
dc.subjectDentistry
dc.subjectAlveolar bones
dc.subjectMalocclusion
dc.subjectMaxillary bone
dc.subjectMini implants
dc.subjectMiniscrews
dc.subjectMolar distalization
dc.subjectPeriodontal ligament
dc.subjectThree dimensional (3-D) modeling
dc.subjectFinite element method
dc.titleComparison of molar distalization devices in a treatment of malocclusion class II: Finite element analysis
dc.typeConference Paper
dc.rights.holderScopus
dc.identifier.bibliograpycitationACM International Conference Proceeding Series. (2019), p.229-234
dc.identifier.doi10.1145/3326172.3326208
Appears in Collections:Scopus 1983-2021

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in SWU repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.