medigraphic.com
ISSN 2395-9215 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de Difusión de la Facultad de Odontología de la UNAM

2014, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev Mex Ortodon 2014; 2 (3)

Resistance to traction forces in mini-implants used in Ortohodontics depending on the insertion angle

Iniestra IO, Grageda NE, Álvarez GC, Guerrero IJ

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 187-191
PDF size: 401.72 Kb.


ABSTRACT

For maximum anchorage in orthodontics, mini-implants have been used for various tooth movements without causing unwanted reactive forces on the teeth. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the mechanical resistance to traction of mini-implants to be evicted from bone and assess whether they can increase their tensile strength depending on its insertion angle (60 and 90o). Pig hip cuts were used for the placement of 5 mini-implants which were inserted with a 60o angulation and a 90o angulation. Ten new 2.5 mm (neck) x 1.6 (diameter) x 8 mm (length) with flat head self- drilling mini-implants were used (MOSAS Dewimed. Germany). They were subjected to perpendicular tensile forces, using a universal mechanical testing machine (Instron) with a loading rate of 1 mm/min. The results were analyzed using Student’s t test. It was observed that 90o angulation mini-implants had better resistance (7.40 ± 2.68 Mpa) than 60o angulation ones (4.21 ± 0.58 Mpa). 90o angulation mini-implants could be a better option for orthodontic treatment due to their higher resistance to traction forces thus improving stability.


REFERENCES

  1. Moschos A. Papadapolus and Fadi Tarawneh. The use of miniscrew implants for temporary skeletal anchorage. Oral surg Oral Med Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 103: e6-e15.

  2. Kuroda S, Sugawara Y. Clinical use of miniscrew implants as orthodontics anchorage: success rates and postoperative discomfort. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 9-15.

  3. Huang Lien-Hui, Shotwell JL, Wang HL. Dental implants for orthodontics anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;127:713-722.

  4. Chen Chung-Ho, Chang ChS, Hsieh ChH. The use of microimplants in orthodontic anchorage. American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006; 64: 1209-1213.

  5. Ricketts RM, Bench RW, Gugino CF, Hilgers JJ, Schulhof RJ. Bioprogressive therapy. Rocky Mountain/Orthodontics. 2004.

  6. Wilmes B, Su YY, Drescher D. Insertion angle impact in primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78: 1065-1070.

  7. Pickard MB, Dechow P, Rossouw PE, Buschang PH. Effects of miniscrew orientation on implant stability and resistance to failure. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137: 91-99.

  8. Liou EJ, Chang PM. Apical root resorption in orthodontic patients with en-masse maxillary anterior retraction and intrusion with miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137: 207-212.

  9. Wang Z, Zhao Z, Xue J, Song J. Pullout strength of miniscrews placed in anterior mandibles of adult and adolescent dogs: a microcomputed tomographic analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137: 100-107.

  10. Lofty Y, El Saeid E. Effect of early orthodontic force on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 138: 208-214.

  11. Kim HK, Sun Yun H, Park H, Kim D. Soft tissue and cortical-bone thickness at orthodontic implant sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130: 177-182.

  12. Park HS, Jeong S, Kwon O. Factors affecting the clinical success of screw implants used as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130: 18-25.

  13. Chen Ch, Chang Ch, Hsieh Ch, Tseng Y. The use of microimplantes in orthodontic anchorage. J Oral Maxillofac Sur. 2006; 64: 1209-1213.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com