Pawan Gautam

Skeletal response to maxillary protraction with and without maxillary expansion: a finite element study.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this finite element study was to evaluate biomechanically 2 treatment modalities-maxillary protraction alone and in combination with maxillary expansion-by comparing the displacement of various craniofacial structures. METHODS Two 3-dimensional analytical models were developed from sequential computed tomography scan images taken at 2.5-mm intervals of a dry young skull. AutoCAD software (2004 version, Autodesk, San Rafael, Calif) and ANSYS software (version 10, Belcan Engineering Group, Cincinnati, Ohio) were used. The model consisted of 108,799 solid 10 node 92 elements, 193,633 nodes, and 580,899 degrees of freedom. In the first model, maxillary protraction forces were simulated by applying 1 kg of anterior force 30 degrees downward to the palatal plane. In the second model, a 4-mm midpalatal suture opening and maxillary protraction were simulated. RESULTS Forward displacement of the nasomaxillary complex with upward and forward rotation was observed with maxillary protraction alone. No rotational tendency was noted when protraction was carried out with 4 mm of transverse expansion. A tendency for anterior maxillary constriction after maxillary protraction was evident. The amounts of displacement in the frontal, vertical, and lateral directions with midpalatal suture opening were greater compared with no opening of the midpalatal suture. The forward and downward displacements of the nasomaxillary complex with maxillary protraction and maxillary expansion more closely approximated the natural growth direction of the maxilla. CONCLUSIONS Displacements of craniofacial structures were more favorable for the treatment of skeletal Class III maxillary retrognathia when maxillary protraction was used with maxillary expansion. Hence, biomechanically, maxillary protraction combined with maxillary expansion appears to be a superior treatment modality for the treatment of maxillary retrognathia than maxillary protraction alone.

Craniofacial displacement in response to varying headgear forces evaluated biomechanically with finite element analysis

INTRODUCTION The aim of this study was to evaluate biomechanically the displacement patterns of the facial bones in response to different headgear loading by using a higher-resolution finite element method model than used in previous studies. METHODS An analytical model was developed from sequential computed tomography scan images taken at 2.5-mm intervals of a dry skull of a 7-year-old. Different headgear forces were simulated by applying 1 kg of posteriorly directed force in the first molar region to simulate cervical-pull, straight-pull, and high-pull headgear. Displacements (in mm) of various craniofacial structures were evaluated along the x, y, and z coordinates with different headgear loading. RESULTS All 3 headgears demonstrated posterior displacement of the maxilla with clockwise rotation of the palatal plane. The distal displacement of the maxilla was the greatest with the straight-pull headgear followed by the cervical-pull headgear. The high-pull headgear had better control in the vertical dimensions. The midpalatal suture opening was evident and was more pronounced in the anterior region. The articular fossa and the articular eminence were displaced laterally and postero-superiorly with each headgear type. CONCLUSIONS The high-pull headgear was most effective in restricting the antero-inferior maxillary growth vector. Midpalatal suture opening similar to rapid maxillary expansion was observed with all 3 headgear types. The center of rotation varied with the direction of headgear forces for both the maxilla and the zygomatic complex. A potential for chondrogenic and osteogenic modeling exists for the articular fossa and the articular eminence with headgear loading.

An evaluation of the Pi analysis in the assessment of anteroposterior jaw relationship

Objective This study has investigated two new cephalometric variables, the Pi angle and Pi linear in the evaluation of anteroposterior skeletal discrepancy. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Setting Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal, India Subjects and method A sample of 155 subjects (mean age 19·7 years) were subdivided into skeletal class I, II and III groups based upon ANB angle. Descriptive data were calculated for each variable and group. Receiver operating characteristics curves were used to examine sensitivity and specificity of the Pi angle in the discrimination between different skeletal groups. Correlation coefficients were obtained for each of the parameters to compare their relationship with other parameters in the class I group. Coefficient of determination, regression coefficient, regression equation and standard error of estimate were also calculated from the parameters showing significant correlation with the Pi angle. Results Mean values for the Pi angle in skeletal class I, II and III subjects were 3·40 (±2·04), 8·94 (±3·16) and −3·57 (±1·61) degrees, respectively. For the Pi linear they were 3·40 (±2·20), 8·90 (±3·56) and −3·30 (±2·30) mm for class I, II and III subjects, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curves showed that a Pi angle greater than 5 degrees had 89% sensitivity and 82% specificity for discriminating a skeletal class II group from class I. A Pi angle of less than 1·3 degrees had 100% sensitivity and 84% specificity in discriminating skeletal class III groups from class I. The overall accuracy for discriminating class II groups from class I was 85% and for class III from class I, 90%. Thus, a cut-off point between class I and II groups could be considered a Pi angle of approximately 5 degrees and between class I and class III, approximately 1·3 degrees. There were no statistically significant correlations found between Pi angle and ANB (0·07), Beta angle (−0·04) and WITS analysis (0·19). The highest level of correlation was obtained for the Pi angle and Pi linear (0·96). Conclusion The anglar and linear components of the Pi analysis are a suitable method for assessing anteroposterior jaw discrepancy in daily clinical practice.