Photoelastic evaluation of mandibular posterior crossbite appliance.
- Author:
Won Jung JUNG
1
;
Sung Ho JANG
;
Young Jooh YOON
;
Kwang Won KIM
Author Information
1. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Chosun University, Korea. jwj86@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Posterior buccal crossbite;
stress;
photoelastic stress analysis;
circular polariscope;
fringe order
- MeSH:
Axis, Cervical Vertebra;
Malocclusion*;
Molar;
Tooth Movement;
Traction
- From:Korean Journal of Orthodontics
2001;31(6):559-566
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
This study was undertaken to demonstrate the forces in the mandibular alveolar bone generated by activation of the mandibular posterior crossbite appliance in the treatment of buccal crossbite caused by lingual eruption of mandibular second molar. A three-dimensional photoelastic model was fabricated using a photoelastic material ( PL-3 ) to simulate alveolar bone. We observed the model from the anterior to the posterior view in a circular polariscope and recorded photographically before and after activation of the mandibular posterior crossbite appliance. The following results were obtained : 1. When the traction force was applied on the buccal surface of the mandibular second molar, stress was concentrated at the lingual alveolar crest and root apex area. The axis of rotation also was at the middle third of the buccal root surface and the root apex, so that uncontrolled tipping and a buccal traction force for the mandibular second molar were developed. 2. When the traction force was applied on the lingual surface of the mandibular second molar, more stress was observed as opposed to those situations in which the force application was on the buccal surface. In addition, stress intensity was increased below the root areas and the axis of rotation of the mandibular second molar was lost. In result, controlled tipping and intrusive tooth movements were developed. 3. When the traction force was applied on either buccal or lingual surface of the second molar, the color patterns of the anchorage unit were similar to the initial color pattern of that before the force application. So we can use the lingual arch for effective anchorage in correcting the posterior buccal crossbite. As in above mentioned results, we must avoid the rotation and uncontrolled tipping, creating occlusal interference of the malpositioned mandibular second molar when correcting posterior buccal crossbite. For this purpose, we recommend the lingual traction force on the second molar as opposed to the buccal traction.
