Fracture strength of orthodontic mini-implants

Assad-Loss, Tatiana Féres; Kitahara-Céia, Flávia Mitiko Fernandes; Silveira, Giordani Santos; Elias, Carlos Nelson; Mucha, José Nelson

doi:10.1590/2177-6709.22.3.047-054.oar

Cited by 18 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…26 The fracture torques of both tip and neck are higher than the torque required to insert mini-implants. 27 The peak fracture torque values of all mini-implants falls within the range of insertion and removal torque values; extra care and caution should be taken during the working process with implants. The failure rate of implant also depends on the clinician's experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fracture Resistance of Commonly Used Self-drilling Mini-implants of Various Diameters

Vinodh

Sangamesh

Patil

et al. 2020

J Indian Orthod Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context: Self-drilling mini-implants are commonly used in orthodontic treatment procedures, but there is limited information regarding their fracture resistance in areas of high-density bone without predrilling. Aims: The objective of this study is to compare and evaluate the maximum insertion torque and fracture resistance of 3 commonly used self-drilling mini-implants in India, and to assess the influence of variation in diameter in torque generation. Materials and methods: 90 mini-implants from 3 different manufacturers with 2 different diameters were drilled into acrylic blocks using a dial indicating torque screwdriver. All mini-implants were drilled at the rate of 20-30 rotations/min, implants were drilled until they fractured. Torque generated at the point of fracture is shown on the dial of the screwdriver. Measurements of the peak insertion torque value for each manufacturer were recorded separately. Statistical analysis: Analysis of variance, post hoc Bonferroni test. Results: Analysis of variance test showed a significant difference among all the manufacturers in both the diameters with P < .05. Implants of 1.6 mm diameter of Ancer group have the highest fracture resistance value when compared with the same diameter of JJ Orthodontics and SK Surgicals. Implants with higher diameter have more resistance than those with lower diameter. Conclusions: The observed highest fracture resistance is 47 Ncm by Ancer and least fracture resistance is 16 Ncm by JJ Orthodontics. The values are higher than the torque required to place mini-implants intraorally. Ancer mini-implants have the highest peak fracture torque, thus more than SK Surgicals and JJ Orthodontics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…26 The fracture torques of both tip and neck are higher than the torque required to insert mini-implants. 27…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of Commonly Used Self-drilling Mini-implants of Various Diameters

Vinodh

Sangamesh

Patil

et al. 2020

J Indian Orthod Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regarding stability, mini-implants are based on the primary (initial) stability system, not on secondary stability, resulting from osseointegration. Their orthodontic strength is unidirectional, and their retention is mechanical, they can be activated with immediate loading provided they have good stability or late loading [22]. virtual library.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mini-implants as anchoring devices in the maxila

Pereira¹,

Maldonado²,

Brandt³

et al. 2018

Mouth Teeth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mini-implants have emerged in orthodontics as an anchoring alternative to conventional orthodontic treatments; they have high clinical versatility, facilitating installation in various locations, especially in the inter radicular regions, eliminating problems for the orthodontist such as loss of anchorage. The size of the miniimplants should correspond to the bone available for the insertion site, cylindrical or cylindrical in shape, with a smooth or treated surface. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the placement of mini-implants as anchoring devices in the maxilla. It is necessary the knowledge of areas with greater thickness of cortical bone to promote stability, as well as the inter-radicular spaces that are safe for the placement of such devices. Its main advantages include its reduced size, easy installation and removal, minimizing the risk of injury to anatomical structures, however it presents as main disadvantage the need for simple surgery that can cause complications if it is not well planned. The safest areas for placement of mini-implants in the maxilla are between the second premolar and first molar. The choice of screw should take into account the mesio-distal space between roots, density, bone depth and mucosal thickness, and factors such as orthodontic movement, direct or indirect anchorage. The anatomy of the chosen site has a considerable individual variation. For the use of the mini-implant, the ideal site should be analyzed by means of computed tomography, panoramic or periapical radiographs.

show abstract

“…In recent years, mini‐implants (MIs) have gained enormous popularity in the orthodontic environment and have become a reliable method to provide temporary orthodontic anchorage . The use of MIs allows the movement to be performed without side effect on the other teeth, being generally well accepted by the patients …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The success rate of MIs depends on factors such as type, diameter and length of the MIs, orthodontic mechanics, dentist's ability, host bone thickness, oral hygiene, presence of soft tissue inflammation and genetic factors …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

RANK/RANKL/OPG gene polymorphisms and loss of orthodontic mini‐implants

Giacobbo

Perin

Pereira

et al. 2020

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To investigate the association of genetic polymorphisms (tagSNPs type) of RANK/RANKL/OPG genes with the loss of orthodontic mini‐implants (MIs). Setting and sample population One hundred and thirty‐five patients of both sexes, with mean age of 48.7 ± 10 (20‐76 years), were studied. The control group was composed of 104 patients, with no MI lost and functioning for at least 6 months and the case group, of 31 patients with at least one MI lost. Materials and methods Cells were obtained by mouthwash with 3% glucose solution for 1 minute and scraping the buccal mucosa with sterilized spatula. DNA was extracted from buccal epithelial cells with 10 M ammonium acetate and 1 mM EDTA. Genotyping was performed by the real‐time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technique. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed (P < .05). Results No markers were associated with MI loss after Benjamini and Hochberg false discovery rate correction of Univariate tests. In the multivariate analysis, the variables that associated with MI loss were the number of MIs installed (P < .000) and the polymorphism rs8086340 in the RANK gene (P = .018). Conclusion A higher number of MIs installed (P < .000) and polymorphism rs8086340 in the RANK gene (P = .018) were associated with loss of orthodontic MIs after multivariate analysis.

show abstract

Fracture strength of orthodontic mini-implants

Cited by 18 publications

References 24 publications

Fracture Resistance of Commonly Used Self-drilling Mini-implants of Various Diameters

Fracture Resistance of Commonly Used Self-drilling Mini-implants of Various Diameters

Mini-implants as anchoring devices in the maxila

RANK/RANKL/OPG gene polymorphisms and loss of orthodontic mini‐implants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About