Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Biomaterials
Volume 2014, Article ID 581029, 5 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/581029
Research Article

Analysis of Different Positions of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Retainers versus Multistrand Wire Retainers Using the Finite Element Method

1Dental Research Center and Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad 9177948959, Iran
2Dental Materials Research Center and Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad 9177948959, Iran
3Dental Research Center and Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Birjand University of Medical Sciences, Birjand, Iran
4Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Park Square, Mashhad 9177948959, Iran

Received 16 July 2014; Revised 7 October 2014; Accepted 7 October 2014; Published 22 October 2014

Academic Editor: Abdelwahab Omri

Copyright © 2014 Arezoo Jahanbin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background. The aim of this study was to evaluate root displacement of the lower incisors fixed with FRC in different positions versus FSW retainers using the finite element method. Materials and Methods. 3D finite element models were designed for a mandibular anterior segment: Model 1: flexible spiral wire bonded to the lingual teeth surfaces, Model 2: FRC bonded to the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces, and Model 3: FRC bonded to the middle third. FE analysis was performed for three models and then tooth displacements were evaluated. Results. In contrast to lateral incisors and canines, the FSW retainer caused the central teeth to move more than the teeth bonded with FRC in both loadings. Comparison between Models 2 and 3 (in vertical loading) showed that FRC retainers that bonded at the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces made central and canine teeth move less than FRC retainers bonded at the middle third; however, for lateral teeth it was the opposite. Conclusion. FRC retainers bonded at the upper third of lingual teeth surfaces make central and canine teeth move less than FRC retainers bonded at the middle third in vertical loading; however, for lateral teeth it was the opposite.