Limits...
Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy.

Vilani GN, Ruellas AC, Elias CN, Mattos CT - Dental Press J Orthod (2015)

Bottom Line: Each animal received six (6) MI.There was no statistical behavioral difference between smooth and rough MI.MI did not remain static, with displacement of rough MI being smaller in comparison with smooth MI, but with no statistical difference.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare in vivo orthodontic mini-implants (MI) of smooth (machined) and rough (acid etched) surfaces, assessing primary and secondary stability.

Methods: Thirty-six (36) MI were inserted in the mandibles of six (6) dogs. Each animal received six (6) MI. In the right hemiarch, three (3) MI without surface treatment (smooth) were inserted, whereas in the left hemiarch, another three (3) MI with acid etched surfaces (rough) were inserted. The two distal MI in each hemiarch received an immediate load of 1.0 N for 16 weeks, whereas the MI in the mesial extremity was not subject to loading. Stability was measured by insertion and removal torque, initial and final mobility and by inter mini-implant distance.

Results: There was no statistical behavioral difference between smooth and rough MI. High insertion torque and reduced initial mobility were observed in all groups, as well as a reduction in removal torques in comparison with insertion torque. Rough MI presented higher removal torque and lower final mobility in comparison to smooth MI. MI did not remain static, with displacement of rough MI being smaller in comparison with smooth MI, but with no statistical difference.

Conclusions: MI primary stability was greater than stability measured at removal. There was no difference in stability between smooth and rough MI when assessing mobility, displacement and insertion as well as removal torques.

No MeSH data available.


- Photographs illustrating the steps for mini-implant placement: A)Initial mini-implant placement with manual key; B) Conclusion of placementwith torque wrench; C) Measurement of inter mini-implant distance; D) Use ofPeriotest; E) Measurement of force of 1 N; F) NiTi spring inposition.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644917&req=5

f03: - Photographs illustrating the steps for mini-implant placement: A)Initial mini-implant placement with manual key; B) Conclusion of placementwith torque wrench; C) Measurement of inter mini-implant distance; D) Use ofPeriotest; E) Measurement of force of 1 N; F) NiTi spring inposition.

Mentions: After initial dental prophylaxis, radiographs were taken by means of the parallelismtechnique and with the aid of an acrylic positioner, so as to check for spaceavailability between roots. Subsequently, the gingiva was marked by a millimetricperiodontal probe located as closely as possible to the limit between keratinized andnon-keratinized gingiva in the region of root bifurcation of third and fourth premolarsand first molar. The opening made in the cortical bone for subsequent mini-implantplacement was done with the aid of a pilot bur 1.0 mm in diameter (Conexão Sistemas ePróteses, Arujá/SP, Brazil), at a speed of 600 rpm, without pressure and under copiousirrigation with 0.9% saline solution. Mini-implants were inserted perpendicular to thebuccal cortical surface of the alveolar bone with the aid of a manual key provided bythe manufacturer and under clockwise movement concluded just before the two final turnswere performed (Fig 3A). Mini-implant insertionwas concluded with the manual key coupled to a portable digital torque meter(Instrutherm TQ 680, Korea) used to obtain the maximum insertion torque value (N.cm)(Fig 3B).


Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy.

Vilani GN, Ruellas AC, Elias CN, Mattos CT - Dental Press J Orthod (2015)

- Photographs illustrating the steps for mini-implant placement: A)Initial mini-implant placement with manual key; B) Conclusion of placementwith torque wrench; C) Measurement of inter mini-implant distance; D) Use ofPeriotest; E) Measurement of force of 1 N; F) NiTi spring inposition.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644917&req=5

f03: - Photographs illustrating the steps for mini-implant placement: A)Initial mini-implant placement with manual key; B) Conclusion of placementwith torque wrench; C) Measurement of inter mini-implant distance; D) Use ofPeriotest; E) Measurement of force of 1 N; F) NiTi spring inposition.
Mentions: After initial dental prophylaxis, radiographs were taken by means of the parallelismtechnique and with the aid of an acrylic positioner, so as to check for spaceavailability between roots. Subsequently, the gingiva was marked by a millimetricperiodontal probe located as closely as possible to the limit between keratinized andnon-keratinized gingiva in the region of root bifurcation of third and fourth premolarsand first molar. The opening made in the cortical bone for subsequent mini-implantplacement was done with the aid of a pilot bur 1.0 mm in diameter (Conexão Sistemas ePróteses, Arujá/SP, Brazil), at a speed of 600 rpm, without pressure and under copiousirrigation with 0.9% saline solution. Mini-implants were inserted perpendicular to thebuccal cortical surface of the alveolar bone with the aid of a manual key provided bythe manufacturer and under clockwise movement concluded just before the two final turnswere performed (Fig 3A). Mini-implant insertionwas concluded with the manual key coupled to a portable digital torque meter(Instrutherm TQ 680, Korea) used to obtain the maximum insertion torque value (N.cm)(Fig 3B).

Bottom Line: Each animal received six (6) MI.There was no statistical behavioral difference between smooth and rough MI.MI did not remain static, with displacement of rough MI being smaller in comparison with smooth MI, but with no statistical difference.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare in vivo orthodontic mini-implants (MI) of smooth (machined) and rough (acid etched) surfaces, assessing primary and secondary stability.

Methods: Thirty-six (36) MI were inserted in the mandibles of six (6) dogs. Each animal received six (6) MI. In the right hemiarch, three (3) MI without surface treatment (smooth) were inserted, whereas in the left hemiarch, another three (3) MI with acid etched surfaces (rough) were inserted. The two distal MI in each hemiarch received an immediate load of 1.0 N for 16 weeks, whereas the MI in the mesial extremity was not subject to loading. Stability was measured by insertion and removal torque, initial and final mobility and by inter mini-implant distance.

Results: There was no statistical behavioral difference between smooth and rough MI. High insertion torque and reduced initial mobility were observed in all groups, as well as a reduction in removal torques in comparison with insertion torque. Rough MI presented higher removal torque and lower final mobility in comparison to smooth MI. MI did not remain static, with displacement of rough MI being smaller in comparison with smooth MI, but with no statistical difference.

Conclusions: MI primary stability was greater than stability measured at removal. There was no difference in stability between smooth and rough MI when assessing mobility, displacement and insertion as well as removal torques.

No MeSH data available.