This study investigated the correlation between bone characteristics, the design of orthodontic mini-implants, the pull-out force, and primary stability. This experimental in vitro study has examined commercial orthodontic mini-implants of different sizes and designs, produced by two manufacturers: Tomas-pin SD (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) and Perfect Anchor (Hubit, Seoul, Korea). The total number of 40 mini-implants were tested. There are two properties that are common to all tested implants—one is the material of which they are made (titanium alloy Ti-6Al-4V), and the other is the method of their insertion. The main difference between the mini-implants, which is why they have been selected as the subject of research in the first place, is reflected in their geometry or design. Regardless of the type of implant, the average pull-out forces were found to be higher for a cortical bone thickness (CBTC) of 0.62–0.67 mm on average, compared to the CBTC < 0.62 mm, where the measured force averages were found to be lower. The analysis of variance tested the impact of the mini-implant geometry on the pull-out force and proved that there is a statistically significant impact (p < 0.015) of all three analyzed geometric factors on the pull-out force of the implant. The design of the mini-implant affects its primary stability. The design of the mini-implant affects the pulling force. The bone quality at the implant insertion point is important for primary stability; thus, the increase in the cortical bone thickness increases the value of the pulling force significantly.

(1) Background: With the ever-increasing number of polymer materials and limited data on polymer gear calculations, designers are often required to perform extensive experimental testing in order to establish reliable operational data for specific gear applications. This research investigates the potential of a Polyvinyldene fluoride (PVDF) polymer material in gear applications, considering various loading conditions and different types of gear transmission configurations, including both self-mated mesh and steel/PVDF mesh. (2) Methods: PVDF gear samples were tested on a specially designed test rig that enables active torque control and temperature monitoring in order to obtain the necessary design parameters and failure modes. Each test for certain load conditions was repeated five times, and to fully investigate the potential of PVDF gear samples, comparative testing was performed for Polyoxymethylene (POM) gear. (3) Results: Tribological compatibility, tooth load capacity, and lifespan assessment, along with the types of failure, which, for some configurations, include several types of failures, such as wear and melting, were determined. Temperature monitoring data were used to estimate the coefficient of friction at the tooth contact of analyzed gear pairs, while optical methods were used to determine a wear coefficient. (4) Conclusions: The tribological compatibility of polymer gear pairs needs to be established in order to design a gear pair for a specific application. PVDF gear samples mated with steel gear showed similar lifespan properties compared to POM samples. Temperature monitoring and optical methods serve as a basis for the determination of the design parameters. PVDF is an appropriate material to use in gear applications, considering its comparable properties with POM. The particular significance of this research is reflected in the establishment of the design parameters of PVDF gear, as well as in the analysis of the potential of the PVDF material in gear applications, which gives exceptional significance to the current knowledge on polymer gears, considering that the PVDF material has not previously been analyzed in gear applications.

Research about characteristics of designs from industrial designers and product designers

As surface wear is one of the major failure mechanisms in many applications that include polymer gears, lifetime prediction of polymer gears often requires time-consuming and expensive experimental testing. This study introduces a contact mechanics model for the surface wear prediction of polymer gears. The developed model, which is based on an iterative numerical procedure, employs a boundary element method (BEM) in conjunction with Archard’s wear equation to predict wear depth on contacting tooth surfaces. The wear coefficients, necessary for the model development, have been determined experimentally for Polyoxymethylene (POM) and Polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) polymer gear samples by employing an abrasive wear model by the VDI 2736 guidelines for polymer gear design. To fully describe the complex changes in contact topography as the gears wear, the prediction model employs Winkler’s surface formulation used for the computation of the contact pressure distribution and Weber’s model for the computation of wear-induced changes in stiffness components as well as the alterations in the load-sharing factors with corresponding effects on the normal load distribution. The developed contact mechanics model has been validated through experimental testing of steel/polymer engagements after an arbitrary number of load cycles. Based on the comparison of the simulated and experimental results, it can be concluded that the developed model can be used to predict the surface wear of polymer gears, therefore reducing the need to perform experimental testing. One of the major benefits of the developed model is the possibility of assessing and visualizing the numerous contact parameters that simultaneously affect the wear behavior, which can be used to determine the wear patterns of contacting tooth surfaces after a certain number of load cycles, i.e., different lifetime stages of polymer gears.

The main objective of this research is to establish a connection between orthodontic mini-implant design, pull-out force and primary stability by comparing two commercial mini-implants or temporary anchorage devices, Tomas^®-pin and Perfect Anchor. Mini-implant geometric analysis and quantification of bone characteristics are performed, whereupon experimental in vitro pull-out test is conducted. With the use of the CATIA (Computer Aided Three-dimensional Interactive Application) CAD (Computer Aided Design)/CAM (Computer Aided Manufacturing)/CAE (Computer Aided Engineering) system, 3D (Three-dimensional) geometric models of mini-implants and bone segments are created. Afterwards, those same models are imported into Abaqus software, where finite element models are generated with a special focus on material properties, boundary conditions and interactions. FEM (Finite Element Method) analysis is used to simulate the pull-out test. Then, the results of the structural analysis are compared with the experimental results. The FEM analysis results contain information about maximum stresses on implant–bone system caused due to the pull-out force. It is determined that the core diameter of a screw thread and conicity are the main factors of the mini-implant design that have a direct impact on primary stability. Additionally, stresses generated on the Tomas^®-pin model are lower than stresses on Perfect Anchor, even though Tomas^®-pin endures greater pull-out forces, the implant system with implemented Tomas^®-pin still represents a more stressed system due to the uniform distribution of stresses with bigger values.

This paper describes comparative analysis of the biomechanical performances conducted on the external fixation devices whose frames are made out of two different material (stainless steel and composite material). Biomechanical properties were determined with experimental and FEM (finite element method) models which are used to study the movement of the fracture crack, establish stiffness of the design solutions and monitor generated stresses on the zones of interest. Geometric modeling of two fixation devices configurations B50 and C50 is used as a basis for structural analysis under the impact of axial load. Structural analysis results are confirmed with an experimental setup. Analyzed deflection values in the load and fracture zones are used to define the exact values of the stiffness for the construction design and fracture, respectively. The carbon frame device configuration has 28% lower construction stiffness than the one with the steel frame (for B50 configuration), i.e., 9% (for C50 configuration). In addition, fracture stiffness values for the composite frame application are approximately 23% lower (B50 configuration), i.e., 13% lower (C50 configuration), compared to steel frame. The carbon frame device has about 33% lower stresses at the critical zones compared to the steel frame at the control zone MM+ and, similarly, 35% lower stresses at the control zone MM-. With an exhausting analysis of the biomechanical properties of the fixation devices, it can be concluded that steel frame fixation device is superior, meaning it has better biomechanical characteristics compared to carbon frame fixation device, regarding obtained data for stresses and stiffnesses of the frame construction and fracture. Considering stresses at the critical zones of the fixation device construction, the carbon frame device has better biomechanical performances compared to steel frame devices.