The effect of periapical bone defects on stress distribution in teeth with periapical periodontitis: a finite element analysis.
Biomechanics
Bone defects
Finite element analysis
Periapical periodontitis
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 Dec 2023
08 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
07
09
2023
accepted:
17
10
2023
medline:
9
12
2023
pubmed:
9
12
2023
entrez:
9
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Apical periodontitis directly affects the stress state of the affected tooth owing to the destruction of the periapical bone. Understanding the mechanical of periapical bone defects/tooth is clinically meaningful. In this study, we evaluate the effect of periapical bone defects on the stress distribution in teeth with periapical periodontitis using finite element analysis. Finite element models of normal mandibular second premolars and those with periapical bone defects (spherical defects with diameters of 5, 10, 15, and 20 mm) were created using a digital model design software. The edges of the mandible were fixed and the masticatory cycle was simplified as oblique loading (a 400 N force loaded obliquely at 45° to the long axis of the tooth body) to simulate the tooth stress state in occlusion and analyze the von Mises stress distribution and tooth displacement distribution in each model. Overall analysis of the models: Compared to that in the normal model, the maximum von Mises stresses in all the different periapical bone defect size models were slightly lower. In contrast, the maximum tooth displacement in the periapical bone defect model increased as the size of the periapical bone defect increased (2.11-120.1% of increase). Internal analysis of tooth: As the size of the periapical bone defect increased, the maximum von Mises stress in the coronal cervix of the tooth gradually increased (2.23-37.22% of increase). while the von Mises stress in the root apical region of the tooth showed a decreasing trend (41.48-99.70% of decrease). The maximum tooth displacement in all parts of the tooth showed an increasing trend as the size of the periapical bone defect increased. The presence of periapical bone defects was found to significantly affect the biomechanical response of the tooth, the effects of which became more pronounced as the size of the bone defect increased.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Apical periodontitis directly affects the stress state of the affected tooth owing to the destruction of the periapical bone. Understanding the mechanical of periapical bone defects/tooth is clinically meaningful. In this study, we evaluate the effect of periapical bone defects on the stress distribution in teeth with periapical periodontitis using finite element analysis.
METHODS
METHODS
Finite element models of normal mandibular second premolars and those with periapical bone defects (spherical defects with diameters of 5, 10, 15, and 20 mm) were created using a digital model design software. The edges of the mandible were fixed and the masticatory cycle was simplified as oblique loading (a 400 N force loaded obliquely at 45° to the long axis of the tooth body) to simulate the tooth stress state in occlusion and analyze the von Mises stress distribution and tooth displacement distribution in each model.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Overall analysis of the models: Compared to that in the normal model, the maximum von Mises stresses in all the different periapical bone defect size models were slightly lower. In contrast, the maximum tooth displacement in the periapical bone defect model increased as the size of the periapical bone defect increased (2.11-120.1% of increase). Internal analysis of tooth: As the size of the periapical bone defect increased, the maximum von Mises stress in the coronal cervix of the tooth gradually increased (2.23-37.22% of increase). while the von Mises stress in the root apical region of the tooth showed a decreasing trend (41.48-99.70% of decrease). The maximum tooth displacement in all parts of the tooth showed an increasing trend as the size of the periapical bone defect increased.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The presence of periapical bone defects was found to significantly affect the biomechanical response of the tooth, the effects of which became more pronounced as the size of the bone defect increased.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38066540
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03546-2
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-03546-2
pmc: PMC10709972
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
980Subventions
Organisme : Zhejiang Province General Research Project
ID : Y202249092
Organisme : Wenzhou Major Scientific and Technological Innovation Project
ID : ZY2022022
Organisme : Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : LY21H140003
Organisme : Wenzhou Science and Technology Bureau
ID : Y2020116 and Y20190102
Organisme : Wenzhou Science and Technology Bureau
ID : H20220011
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 81870757 and 81901015
Organisme : Zhejiang Provincial Natural Science Foundation of China / Outstanding Youth Science Foundation
ID : LR21H140002
Organisme : Zhejiang Provincial Medical and Health Science and Technology Program General Project
ID : 2023KY916
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Ann Biomed Eng. 2021 Jun;49(6):1561-1571
pubmed: 33409850
Mol Med Rep. 2017 Feb;15(2):559-566
pubmed: 28000855
J Endod. 2013 Mar;39(3 Suppl):S6-8
pubmed: 23439046
J Dent Res. 1960 May-Jun;39:608-18
pubmed: 14430405
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2014 Feb;102(2):244-9
pubmed: 23997026
Med Sci Monit. 2007 May;13 Suppl 1:129-36
pubmed: 17507898
J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Oct;76(4):424-30
pubmed: 8897301
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2022 Jul 22;12:908859
pubmed: 35937695
J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Feb;75(2):140-7
pubmed: 8667271
Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Oct 17;10:1036061
pubmed: 36324890
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014 Mar-Apr;29(2):e147-54
pubmed: 24683579
Int Endod J. 2021 May;54(5):712-735
pubmed: 33378579
J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2019 Sep;97:272-277
pubmed: 31136923
Int Endod J. 2006 Aug;39(8):637-42
pubmed: 16872458
Saudi Med J. 2017 Apr;38(4):413-421
pubmed: 28397949
Dent Mater. 2014 Feb;30(2):131-7
pubmed: 24239223
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Jun;117(6):735-742
pubmed: 27914668
J Endod. 2022 May;48(5):659-668
pubmed: 35227729
Quintessence Int. 2008 Feb;39(2):117-29
pubmed: 18560650
Dent Mater. 2018 Oct;34(10):1466-1473
pubmed: 29935769
Materials (Basel). 2022 Nov 07;15(21):
pubmed: 36363451
J Periodontol. 1998 Dec;69(12):1392-6
pubmed: 9926769
J Endod. 2010 Jan;36(1):115-8
pubmed: 20003947
Dent Mater. 2013 Jul;29(7):788-96
pubmed: 23694844
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2007 Dec 01;12(8):E585-90
pubmed: 18059244
J Endod. 2014 Sep;40(9):1489-93
pubmed: 25146040
J Endod. 2016 Jan;42(1):150-5
pubmed: 26518216
J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Dec;66(6):737-42
pubmed: 1805021
Arch Oral Biol. 2018 Dec;96:195-200
pubmed: 30292055
J Endod. 1998 Oct;24(10):678-81
pubmed: 10023252
J Dent. 2006 Nov;34(10):790-5
pubmed: 16600462
Med Hypotheses. 2019 Mar;124:87-90
pubmed: 30798925
J Dent Res. 2011 May;90(5):590-5
pubmed: 21321067
Rom J Morphol Embryol. 2013;54(3):587-92
pubmed: 24068408
Clin Oral Investig. 2018 Nov;22(8):2799-2807
pubmed: 29404813
Biomaterials. 1997 Jul;18(14):995-9
pubmed: 9212195
BMC Oral Health. 2019 May 14;19(1):84
pubmed: 31088450
Int Endod J. 2019 Oct;52(10):1508-1518
pubmed: 31116441
J Family Med Prim Care. 2020 Jan 28;9(1):235-238
pubmed: 32110596
J Prosthet Dent. 2022 Apr 27;:
pubmed: 35489836
Materials (Basel). 2020 Jul 09;13(14):
pubmed: 32659947
Int Endod J. 2020 Dec;53(12):1696-1704
pubmed: 32781493
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Sep;112(3):547-54
pubmed: 24630398
Acta Odontol Scand. 2019 Apr;77(3):173-180
pubmed: 30585523
Quintessence Int. 2007 Oct;38(9):733-43
pubmed: 17873980