Cortical and Trabecular Bone Stress Assessment during Periodontal Breakdown–A Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Multiple Failure Criteria

• Published in: Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Lithuania), 2023-08, Vol.59 (8), p.1462
• Main Authors: Moga, Radu Andrei, Olteanu, Cristian Doru, Buru, Stefan Marius, Botez, Mircea Daniel, Delean, Ada Gabriela
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Accuracy; Biomechanics; bone; bone loss; Comparative analysis; Deformation; Dental pulp; Finite element analysis; Finite element method; Fractures; Ischemia; orthodontic force; orthodontic movement; Orthodontics; Periodontium; Physiological aspects; Physiology; Shear stress; Simulation methods; Stress analysis; Transplants & implants
• ISSN: 1648-9144; 1010-660X; 1648-9144
• DOI: 10.3390/medicina59081462

Background and Objectives: This numerical analysis investigated the biomechanical behavior of the mandibular bone as a structure subjected to 0.5 N of orthodontic force during periodontal breakdown. Additionally, the suitability of the five most used failure criteria (Von Mises (VM), Tresca (T), maximum principal (S1), minimum principal (S3), and hydrostatic pressure (HP)) for the study of bone was assessed, and a single criterion was identified for the study of teeth and the surrounding periodontium (by performing correlations with other FEA studies). Materials and Methods: The finite element analysis (FEA) employed 405 simulations over eighty-one mandibular models with variable levels of bone loss (0–8 mm) and five orthodontic movements (intrusion, extrusion, tipping, rotation, and translation). For the numerical analysis of bone, the ductile failure criteria are suitable (T and VM are adequate for the study of bone), with Tresca being more suited. S1, S3, and HP criteria, due to their distinctive design dedicated to brittle materials and liquids/gas, only occasionally correctly described the bone stress distribution. Results: Only T and VM displayed a coherent and correlated gradual stress increase pattern for all five movements and levels of the periodontal breakdown. The quantitative values provided by T and VM were the highest (for each movement and level of bone loss) among all five criteria. The MHP (maximum physiological hydrostatic pressure) was exceeded in all simulations since the mandibular bone is anatomically less vascularized, and the ischemic risks are reduced. Only T and VM displayed a correlated (both qualitative and quantitative) stress increase for all five movements. Both T and VM displayed rotation and translation, closely followed by tipping, as stressful movements, while intrusion and extrusion were less stressful for the mandibular bone. Conclusions: Based on correlations with earlier numerical studies on the same models and boundary conditions, T seems better suited as a single unitary failure criterion for the study of teeth and the surrounding periodontium.