Effect of surface anodization on stability of orthodontic microimplant

Abstract

ObjectiveTo determine the effect of surface anodization on the interfacial strength between an orthodontic microimplant (MI) and the rabbit tibial bone, particularly in the initial phase after placement.MethodsA total of 36 MIs were driven into the tibias of 3 mature rabbits by using the self-drilling method and then removed after 6 weeks. Half the MIs were as-machined (n = 18; machined group), while the remaining had anodized surfaces (n = 18; anodized group). The peak insertion torque (PIT) and the peak removal torque (PRT) values were measured for the 2 groups of MIs. These values were then used to calculate the interfacial shear strength between the MI and cortical bone.ResultsThere were no statistical differences in terms of PIT between the 2 groups. However, mean PRT was significantly greater for the anodized implants (3.79 ± 1.39 Ncm) than for the machined ones (2.05 ± 1.07 Ncm) (p < 0.01). The interfacial strengths, converted from PRT, were calculated at 10.6 MPa and 5.74 MPa for the anodized and machined group implants, respectively.ConclusionsAnodization of orthodontic MIs may enhance their early-phase retention capability, thereby ensuring a more reliable source of absolute anchorage.

Effects of predrilling on the osseointegration potential of mini-implants

“…This is due to the increase of bone-implant contact by bone remodeling and bone maturation during the first 6 weeks. [16][17][18] Stability of orthodontic mini-implants was evaluated by measuring removal torque 13,22 and histomorphometric analysis was evaluated by measuring BIC. 23,24 Mechanical analysis showed no change in maximum removal torque or total energy with time lapse.…”

Modified Titanium Implant as a Gateway to the Human Body: The Implant Mediated Drug Delivery System

“…Recent studies have demonstrated that titanium implants have a reliable success rate due to their well-documented biocompatibility [8–11]. Various types of such implants are widely used today to substitute for missing teeth and to act as supporting retentive structures or anchorage devices [7, 12–16].…”

Effect of Surface Treatment of Orthodontic Mini-Screw Implants on Their Stability; In Vivo Study

“…It also improved adhesion, proliferation of osteoblastic cells and promoting osseointegration. [17][18][19] The resultant of such treatment was, 3 D bone formation around the MIs and greater bone to implants , contact which enhanced the stability of MIs. 19 The success rate in this study was 22 (81.5%) anodized mini-screw implants , while only 18 (66%) smooth surface minimplants were stable throughout the treatment.…”

“…[17][18][19] The resultant of such treatment was, 3 D bone formation around the MIs and greater bone to implants , contact which enhanced the stability of MIs. 19 The success rate in this study was 22 (81.5%) anodized mini-screw implants , while only 18 (66%) smooth surface minimplants were stable throughout the treatment. The literatures reported different success rates, Tseng et al 20 reported success rate of 91% after examining the stability of 45 MIs used in orthodontic treatment.…”

“…En masse retraction allowed subjecting these MIs to the highest orthodontic force for relatively long loading duration. This study design was similar to that used by many authors 1,4,[17][18][19][20][21] while, others tested the stability of MIs during canines retraction where, they were unable to subject the MIs to high orthodontic forces for long duration. 13,20 MIs design, length and diameter had been proved to affect the stability and success rate of MIs.…”