Loading rate, geometry, and damage state influence vertical extraction biomechanics in an ex vivo swine dental model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Validated models describing the biomechanics of tooth extraction are scarce. This study seeks to perform experimental and numerical characterization of vertical tooth extraction biomechanics in swine incisors with imposed vertical extraction loads. Imaging analysis related mechanical outcomes to tooth geometry and applied loading rate. Then, the predictive capabilities of the developed finite element analysis (FEA) models were demonstrated by testing different loading scenarios and validating the results against experimental equivalents. Methods Simulated vertical extractions were performed on partial swine central incisors (n = 49) and studied for peak extraction force and dental complex stiffness. Post-extraction µCT images were obtained to measure root surface attachment area (RSAA) and observe patterns of periodontal ligament (PDL) rupture. Crosshead force-displacement data was used in an inverse finite element analysis (IFEA) to verify parameters for the PDL in an axisymmetric model of tooth extraction. New force-hold loading protocols were devised in silico and validated in a series of tests on swine incisors to demonstrate the predictive efficacy of the finite element model. Force-hold loading on an initially-damaged PDL was also simulated. Results Reductions in loading rate and RSAA were found to significantly reduce peak extraction forces by 98N–120 N. Increases in instantaneous stiffness during loading were associated with increases in loading rate. Inverse finite element solutions demonstrated consistent PDL parameters across loading cases. Force-hold loading predicted extraction behaviour with large variance in extraction time. Damage imposed in the FEA model was able to predict experimental results from experiments on similarly-damaged dental complexes. Conclusion This study presents a comprehensive experimental and numerical characterization of vertical tooth extraction biomechanics employing an ex vivo swine model. The results of these experiments suggest that the axisymmetric FEA model is a powerful tool for predicting a range of conditions and dental complex geometries. The predictive power of the FEA model demonstrated in this study encourages its use in pre-clinical testing and development of new vertical extraction loading schemes for improving clinical outcomes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".