Search

Cesarean scar defect represents a significant pathology attributed to the rising prevalence of cesarean deliveries. While not commonplace, these lesions can give rise to severe obstetric consequences during subsequent pregnancies. Given the potential complications, it is advisable to screen for uterine niches using transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) or contrast-enhanced TVUS for individuals planning to conceive. Surgical repair and correction of these lesions can be crucial in averting obstetric and perinatal complications in future pregnancies. Furthermore, timely sonographic evaluation and reporting of isthmocele-related obstetric complications can help avoid serious issues.

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the initial stress distribution and displacement on mandibular dentition using extra and inter-radicular mini-implants for arch distalization, by means of finite element analysis. Methods: For this study, two finite element models of the mandible were designed. The models consisted of periodontal ligament (PDL) and alveolar bone of all teeth until second molars. In the Case 1, bilateral extra-radicular buccal-shelf stainless steel mini-implants (10.0-mm length; 2.0-mm diameter) were placed between first and second permanent molars. In the Case 2, bilateral inter-radicular stainless steel mini-implants (10.0-mm length; 1.5-mm diameter) were placed between second premolar and first permanent molar. Power hook was attached between canine and first premolar at a fixed height of 8mm. In the two cases, 200g of distalization force was applied. ANSYS v. 12.1 software was used to analyze and compare von Mises stress and displacement in the mandibular dentition, PDL and bone. Results: Higher stresses were observed in mandibular dentition with the inter-radicular implant system. The amount of von Mises stress was higher for cortical bone (85.66MPa) and cancellous bone (3.64MPa) in Case 2, in comparison to cortical bone (41.93MPa) and cancellous bone (3.43MPa) in Case 1. The amount of arch distalization was higher for mandible in Case 1 (0.028mm), in comparison to Case 2 (0.026mm). Conclusion: Both systems were clinically safe, but extra-radicular implants showed more effective and controlled distalization pattern, in comparison to inter-radicular implants, in Class III malocclusion treatment.