Morphological and structural characteristics of orthodontic mini-implants

AlSamak, Saeed; Bitsanis, Elias; Makou, Margarita; Εliades, George

doi:10.1007/s00056-011-0061-0

Cited by 9 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Using the formula to calculate the surface area of a cylinder which is 2(3.14)(r)(h) + 2 (3.14)(r 2 )the surface area was determined to be 3.8 cm 2 . This is in close agreement to 3.9 cm 2 for the Vector TAS miniscrew reported by Al Samaket al [22]. This miniscrew was thus tested in this study at a surface area to volume ratio of 0.78 cm 2 /ml which is within the ISO recommended range.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Biocompatibility of Temporary Anchorage Devices Using an in vitro Cell Culture Model

Birg¹,

Wheater²

2016

J Dent Oro Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of five commercially available orthodontic miniscrews/ temporary anchorage devices. Materials and Methods:A cell culture system using commercially available human gingival fibroblasts was utilized. Miniscrews/ temporary anchorage devices obtained from Ormco, Ortho Organizer, 3M Unitek, American Orthodontics, and Rocky Mountain Orthodontics were immersed in culture medium for either 48 hours or two weeks. The surface area to volume character of the eluates produced by this method was within the suggested ISO range. Gingival fibroblasts were exposed to miniscrew/temporary anchorage device conditioned culture medium for 24 hours. Biocompatibility and cytotoxicity were measured using colorimetric 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) assays. Results were analyzed using ANOVA with Tukey's post-test and P < 0.05).Results: LDH analysis showed no differences in disruption of cell membrane integrity, suggesting that the miniscrews/temporary anchorage devices were not cytotoxic to gingival fibroblasts (P > 0.05 for all comparisons). MTT analysis, used to quantify viable cells, demonstrated that 48 hour conditioned medium significantly affected cell viability (P < 0.001 for all treatments compared to control). In contrast two week conditioned medium from all five devices did not affect cell viability compared to control. Conclusion:The results of this study suggest that miniscrews/ temporary anchorage devices demonstrate longer-term biocompatibility with gingival fibroblasts and that the composition of the devices is not cytotoxic to oral cells. The general lack of data regarding the cytotoxicity of miniscrews/temporary anchorage devices in orthodontic treatment warrants further investigation.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 89%

Biocompatibility of Temporary Anchorage Devices Using an in vitro Cell Culture Model

Birg¹,

Wheater²

2016

J Dent Oro Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…8,27,38 screws made of steel, pure titanium, or titanium alloy-aluminum-vanadium Ti 6 Al 4 V are available on the market. 1 The surgical steel and the titanium alloy have mechanical properties which decrease the risk of fracturing the screw during its installation or removal. Different surface treatments have been tested and are proposed: microsandblasting, chemical etching, and mechanical machining.…”

Section: Doi: 101051/odfen/2016020mentioning

confidence: 99%

New perspectives on miniscrews: improving stability

Brézulier

Sorel

2016

J Dentofacial Anom Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although there is no official standard design, manufacturers have adopted various concepts in order to avoid clinical complications and achieve specific clinical goals. 3 The button-like head with spheroid or hexagonal shape is most common, although bracket-like and hook designs do occur. Primary stability relates to the implant diameter and its intraosseous design, [9][10][11] and secondary stability to the surface chemical composition and roughness of the implant.…”

Section: Design Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,2 Moreover, the clinical impact of these properties on pullout strength, 3 implant stability 4 and nature of the bone-implant interface 5 has not been systematically investigated, apart from some published data regarding failure rates of these devices. 1,2 Moreover, the clinical impact of these properties on pullout strength, 3 implant stability 4 and nature of the bone-implant interface 5 has not been systematically investigated, apart from some published data regarding failure rates of these devices.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%