Dataset Information

Fracture strength of orthodontic mini-implants.

ABSTRACT: This study aimed at evaluating the design and dimensions of five different brands of orthodontic mini-implants, as well as their influence on torsional fracture strength.Fifty mini-implants were divided into five groups corresponding to different manufactures (DEN, RMO, CON, NEO, SIN). Twenty-five mini-implants were subjected to fracture test by torsion in the neck and the tip, through arbors attached to a Universal Mechanical Testing Machine. The other 25 mini-implants were subjected to insertion torque test into blocks of pork ribs using a torquimeter and contra-angle handpiece mounted in a surgical motor. The shape of the active tip of the mini-implants was evaluated under microscopy. The non-parametric Friedman test and Snedecor's F in analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used to evaluate the differences between groups.The fracture torque of the neck ranged from 23.45 N.cm (DEN) to 34.82 N.cm (SIN), and of the tip ranged from 9.35 N.cm (CON) to 24.36 N.cm (NEO). Insertion torque values ranged from 6.6 N.cm (RMO) to 10.2 N.cm (NEO). The characteristics that most influenced the results were outer diameter, inner diameter, the ratio between internal and external diameters, and the existence of milling in the apical region of the mini-implant.The fracture torques were different for both the neck and the tip of the five types evaluated. NEO and SIN mini-implants showed the highest resistance to fracture of the neck and tip. The fracture torques of both tip and neck were higher than the torque required to insert mini-implants.

SUBMITTER: Assad-Loss TF

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5525445 | biostudies-other | 2017 May-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/aimRetraction of the upper incisors/canines requires maximum anchorage. The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy of mini implants in comparison to conventional devices in patients with need for en masse retraction of the front teeth in the upper jaw.Material and methodsAn electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE and hand searching were performed. Relevant articles were assessed, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. A random effects model, weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for horizontal and vertical anchorage loss at the first molars in the analyzed patient treatments.ResultsA total of seven RCTs employing direct anchorage through implants in the alveolar ridge were finally considered for qualitative and quantitative analysis, and further five publications were considered for the qualitative analysis only (three studies: indirect anchorage through implant in the mid-palate, two studies: direct/indirect anchorage in the alveolar ridge). In the control groups, anchorage was achieved through transpalatal arches, headgear, Nance buttons, intrusion arches, and differential moments. WMD [95% CI, p] in anchorage loss between test and control groups amounted to - 2.79 mm [- 3.56 to - 2.03 mm, p < 0.001] in the horizontal and - 1.76 mm [- 2.56 to - 0.97, p < 0.001] favoring skeletal anchorage over control measures. The qualitative analysis revealed that minor anchorage loss can be associated with indirect anchorage, whereas anchorage gain was commonly associated with direct anchorage. Implant failures were comparable for both anchorage modalities (direct 9.9%, indirect 8.6%).ConclusionWithin its limitations, the meta-analysis revealed that maximum anchorage en masse retraction can be achieved by orthodontic mini implants and direct anchorage; however, the ideal implant location (palate versus alveolar ridge) and the beneficial effect of direct over indirect anchorage needs to be further evaluated.

Project description:The study aimed to clinically estimate an influence of a 635 nm diode laser on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants, to assess mini-implants loss, and to evaluate a pain level after the treatment. The randomized clinical split-mouth trial included 20 subjects (13 women and 7 men; age: 32.5 ± 6.1 years), 40 implants (RMO, West Colfax Ave., Denver, CO, USA) with a diameter 1.4 mm and length of 10 mm. Mini-implants were placed in the area of the attached gingiva between the second premolar and first molar teeth, 2 mm below the mucogingival junction of both sides of the maxilla. Each implant on the right side (G1, n = 20) of the maxilla was irradiated with a diode laser, and the implants on the opposite side (left, G2, n = 20) were a control group (without laser irradiation). The 635-nm laser parameters; dose: 10 J per point (20 J/cm2), time: 100 s per point, two points (irradiation on a buccal, and a palatal side of the alveolus/implant), the total energy per session 20 J. Laser application protocol: immediately and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 30 days after surgery. The total energy after all therapeutic sessions was 140 J. The implants' stability was measured employing a Periotest device (Periotest Test Value-PTV) immediately and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 30, and 60 days after the insertion of the mini-implants. We found significantly higher secondary stability, lower mean PTV (6.18 ± 5.30) and (1.51 ± 2.25), for self-drilling mini-implants (G1, test group) in contrast to the control, G2 group (9.17 ± 8.25) and (5.00 ± 3.24), after 30 (p = 0.0003) and 60 days (p = 0.0000). Moreover, the analysis of the mini-implants stability after 635-nm diode laser application revealed significant higher stability in comparison with none irradiated implants (G2 group) after 3 days. (p = 0.0000) There was no significant difference in pain level measured on the NRS-11 scale on both sides of the maxilla. (p = 0.3665) An important finding was that all inserted mini-implants survived during a two-month observation period. 635-nm diode laser at laser irradiation increases the secondary stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Dataset Information

Fracture strength of orthodontic mini-implants.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets