International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Efficacy of SAVE: A Novel Maxillary Protraction Device—A Finite Element Analysis

Sandeep Shetty, Nandish B T, Vivek Amin, Pooja Harish, Stanly S Kumar, Abirami T

Keywords : Class III corrector, Facemask, Finite element method, Maxillary protraction device

Citation Information : Shetty S, B T N, Amin V, Harish P, Kumar SS, T A. Efficacy of SAVE: A Novel Maxillary Protraction Device—A Finite Element Analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2024; 17 (12):1377-1382.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3003

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 06-01-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Introduction: This study describes a novel device known as “SAVE” to effectively protract the deficient maxilla in class III malocclusion by quantifying and evaluating the changes in the maxilla through a finite element analysis (FEA). Materials and methods: The patented novel SAVE device was three-dimensionally modeled using Autodesk Fusion 360. An existing computed tomography (CT) scan of a patient exhibiting class III malocclusion was used to generate a finite element (FE) model. The total number of nodes was 8,49,682 and 5,30,716 elements. The material of choice for the appliance was medical-grade polyetheretherketone (PEEK) polymer. The loading was performed to simulate maxillary protraction (after assigning material properties). The loading forces of 3.5, 5.5, and 9 N were simulated on each side with 30° angulations to the occlusal plane. The color changes in terms of areas of maximum (red) and minimum (blue) deformation. Results: The FEA results with protraction forces of 3.5, 5.5, and 9 N showed deformation of the maxilla in the forward and downward directions. Equivalent von Mises stress on the SAVE appliance showed stress on the superior surface of the main frame and on the area below the struts where the force module was attached. In relation to the implant, the stress concentration was on the posterior and superior area around the implant. Conclusion: The FEM analysis force vectors showed a forward and downward deformation of the maxilla with counterclockwise rotation, supporting the fact that the novel appliance could bring about effective maxillary protraction in a shorter duration.


PDF Share
  1. Lacour M. Contraindications to the use of extraoral forces in dentofacial orthopedics. Rev Stomatol Chir Maxillofac 1976;77(3):563–567.
  2. Küçükkeleş N, Nevzatoğlu S, Koldaş T. Rapid maxillary expansion compared to surgery for assistance in maxillary face mask protraction. Angle Orthod 2011;81(1):42–49. DOI: 10.2319/042210-220.1
  3. Aileni KR, Rachala MR. Early treatment of class III malocclusion with Petit facemask therapy. Int J Orthod Milwaukee 2011;22(4):41–45.
  4. Tanaka OM, Araújo EA, Oliver DR, et al. A finite element analysis of the maxillary first molar PDL with maxillary protraction in a mixed dentition class III malocclusion. Orthod Craniofac Res 2015;18(4):242–250. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12102
  5. Ngan PW, Hagg U, Yiu C, et al. Treatment response and long-term dentofacial adaptations to maxillary expansion and protraction. Semin Orthod 1997;3(4):255–264. DOI: 10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80058-8
  6. Baik HS. Clinical results of the maxillary protraction in Korean children. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108(6):583–592. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70003-x
  7. Parton AL, Tong DC, De Silva HL, et al. A 9 years review of orthognathic surgery at the University of Otago. N Z Dent J 2011;107(4):117–120.
  8. Proffit WR, Turvey TA, Phillips C. Orthognathic surgery: a hierarchy of stability. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1996;11(3):191–204.
  9. Macdonald KE, Kapust AJ, Turley PK. Cephalometric changes after the correction of class III malocclusion with maxillary expansion/facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(1):13–24. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70298-2
  10. Kim JH, Viana MA, Graber TM, et al. The effectiveness of protraction face mask therapy: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115(6):675–685. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70294-5
  11. Billiet T, de Pauw G, Dermaut L. Location of the centre of resistance of the upper dentition and the nasomaxillary complex. An experimental study. Eur J Orthod 2001;23(3):263–273. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/23.3.263
  12. Jain S. Clinical tip for adjusting reverse pull Facemask/headgear assembly. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(1):ZH01–ZH02. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/16492.7125
  13. Keles A, Tokmak EC, Erverdi N, et al. Effect of varying the force direction on maxillary orthopedic protraction. Angle Orthod 2002;72(5):387–396. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2002)072<0387:EOVTFD>2.0.CO;2
  14. Roberts WE, Viecilli RF, Chang C, et al. Biology of biomechanics: finite element analysis of a statically determinate system to rotate the occlusal plane for correction of a skeletal class III open-bite malocclusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;148(6):943–955. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.10.002
  15. Toth JM, Wang M, Estes BT, et al. Polyetheretherketone as a biomaterial for spinal applications. Biomaterials 2006;27(3):324–334. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.07.011
  16. Jones DP, Leach DC, Moore DR. Mechanical properties of poly(ether-ether-ketone) for engineering applications. Polymer 1985;26(9):1385–1393. DOI: 10.1016/0032-3861(85)90316-7
  17. Gazzani F, Pavoni C, Giancotti A, et al. Facemask performance during maxillary protraction: a finite element analysis (FEA) evaluation of load and stress distribution on Delaire facemask. Prog Orthod 2018;19:1–5. DOI: 10.1186/s40510-018-0217-1
  18. Tanne K, Sakuda M. Biomechanical and clinical changes of the craniofacial complex from orthopedic maxillary protraction. Angle Orthod 1991;61:145–152. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1991)061<0145:BACCOT>2.0.CO;2
  19. Westwood PV, McNamara JA, Baccetti T, et al. Long-term effects of class III treatment with rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy followed by fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(3):306–320. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.44
  20. De Clerck HJ, Cornelis MA, Cevidanes LH, et al. Orthopedic traction of the maxilla with miniplates: a new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2009;67:2123–2129.
  21. Cevidanes L, Baccetti T, Franchi L, et al. Comparison of two protocols for maxillary protraction: bone anchors versus face mask with rapid maxillary expansion. Angle Orthod 2010;80:799–806.
  22. Van Hevele J, Nout E, Claeys T, et al. Bone-anchored maxillary protraction to correct a class III skeletal relationship: A multicenter retrospective analysis of 218 patients. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 2018;46(10):1800–1806.
  23. Baccetti T, Franchi L, McNamara JA. Treatment and posttreatment craniofacial changes after rapid maxillary expansion and facemask therapy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118(4):404–413. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2000.109840
  24. Gazzani F, Pavoni C, Cozza P, et al. Stress on facial skin of class III subjects during maxillary protraction: a finite element analysis. BMC Oral Health 2019;19(1):31. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0724-6
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.