This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by McAlamey, M.E. Articles by Song, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McAlamey, M.E. Articles by Song, D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Form Difference Computations in Restorative Dentistry Utilizing the Macroelement Method

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental and Oral Surgery, Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA

C.B. Phillips

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental and Oral Surgery, Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA

D. Song

Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dental and Oral Surgery, Columbia University, 630 West 168th Street, New York, NY 10032, USA

The comparison between the size and shape (form) of two structures or the analysis of one object under differing conditions is important in restorative dentistry. Despite rapid advances in digitizing technologies, form comparison is still mainly limited to scalar measurements. The objective of this study was to test the potential use of a newly developed tensorial morphometric difference technique, the macroelement method, in a model restorative system where the processing and materials properties are known: duplication of a denture anchor in stone via polysulfide, addition silicone, and polyether impression materials. Nine machined landmarks were utilized to construct a nine-sided element for macroelement analysis. Macroelement results compared well with the known impression materials properties of polymerization shrinkage and incomplete recovery in terms of: (1) larger die diameter, (2) smaller die (vertically), (3) horizontal direction of maximum expansion, and (4) vertical direction of maximum contraction. Also, macroelement results along boundary lines were equal to the traditional form difference measure of change in length/length of those lines. The macroelement method provided results which are superior to those of traditional methods in that both (1) the magnitude and direction of difference at any point on the structure could be determined, and (2) the graphical representation of the results provides an intuitive appreciation of how and where the forms differ. Therefore, since macroelement results: (1) compare well with known materials properties and traditional measures, and (2) have the above-stated advantages, tensorial techniques such as the macroelement method, used in conjunction with new digitizing technologies, can be used better to describe the kinematics of form difference. With the description of the kinematics provided by the technique, the dynamic cause of the form difference can be ascertained with the investigators' knowledge of materials. The investigators can then suggest changes to be made in materials and/or techniques that would enable the desired size and shape to be obtained.

Key Words: morphometrics • impression • macroelement method • form difference

REFERENCES

• Cheverud JM, Lewis JL, Bachrach W, Lew WD (1983). The measurement of form and variation in form: An application of three-dimensional quantitative morphology by finite-element methods. Am J Phys Anthropol 62:151-165. Craig RG (1988). Review of dental impression materials. Adv Dent Res 2:51-64.
• Craig RG (1993). Restorative dental materials. 9th ed. Boston: Mosby.
• Craig RG, Urquiola NJ, Liu CC (1990).Comparison of commercial elastomeric impression materials. Oper Dent 15:94-104.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Crandall SH, Dahl NC, Lardner TJ (1978). An introduction to the mechanics of solids. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. Dasgupta G (1989). Pade shape functions for macro finite elements: Growth tensor by computer algebra for biological forms. Proceedings of CANCAM '89, Department of Civil Engineering, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
• Johnson GH, Craig RG (1985). Accuracy of four types of rubber impression materials compared with time of pour and a repeat pour of models. J Prosthet Dent 53:484-490.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Lestrel PE (1989). Some approaches toward the mathematical modeling of the craniofacial complex. J Craniofac Genet Dev Biol 9:77-91.[Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• McAlarney ME (1993). Boundary behavior of macro and finite elements. Proceedings of the Summer '93 Bioengineering Conference, June 25-29, 1993, Breckinridge, CO. Langrana NA, Freidman MH, Grood ES, editors. New York, NY: ASME, pp. 107-110.
• McAlarney ME (1995). The use of the boundary element method for biological morphometrics. J Biomechan 28:609-616. McAlarney ME, Chiu W-K (1995). Traditional vs numerical descriptions of cleft palate form change (abstract). J Dent Res 74(Spec Iss):256.
• McAlarney ME, Moss-Salentijn L., Moss ML, Basra M. (1992). Macro/finite element meshes. Proceedings of the Ninth Engineering Mechanics Conference, May 24-27, 1992, College Station, TX. Lutes LD, Niedzwecki JM, editors. New York: ASCE, pp. 980-983.
• McAlarney ME, Huang LP, Moss-Salentijn L., Moss ML ( 1993). Variation in calculated growth with element shape (abstract). J Dent Res 72(Spec Iss):366.
• Phillips RW (1991). Skinner's science of dental materials. 9th ed. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.
• Salzman JA (1966). Practice of orthodontics. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.
• Shin Y., Kawai K. (1992). A study of optimum die-design in the heading process with two blows. Part 2: Use of finite-element analysis. J Mater Process Technol 30:67-77.
• Skalak R., Dasgupta G., Moss ML, Otten P., Dullemger P., Vilmann H. (1982). Analytical description of growth. J Theoret Biol 94:555-577.[CrossRef][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
• Steele JM (1989). Applied finite element modeling. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
• Thompson DW (1952). On growth and form. 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 75, No. 7, 1464-1476 (1996)
DOI: 10.1177/00220345960750070601


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by McAlamey, M.E. Articles by Song, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McAlamey, M.E. Articles by Song, D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?