OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the stability and resistance to orthodontic forces of immediately loaded sandblasted and acid-etched (SAE) mini-implants and those of machined-surface implants of the same size and shape. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of mini-implants were used in the tibiae of 44 rabbits; some had an SAE surface and some had machined surfaces. Orthodontic loading of 150 g was applied immediately after placement. The success rates and maximum removal torque values (RTVs) of 412 mini-implants were recorded and compared immediately after placement, 3 days after placement, and 1, 6, and 10 weeks after placement. The RTV data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis to evaluate differences with respect to surface treatment, loading, and loading periods (P < .05). Multiple comparisons using the Scheffé method were performed to evaluate the RTVs for the subsequent loading periods. RESULTS: Thirteen mini-implants failed during the experimental period. The SAE group had a higher RTV than the machined group, and there was significant difference in RTVs in accordance with loading periods (P < .001). However, there was no significant RTV difference between loaded and unloaded mini-implants. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis was supported. Both SAE mini-implants and machined mini-implants can be loaded immediately and experience similar success rates. RTVs were higher for the SAE mini-implants than for the machined mini-implants. The latter finding suggests that, for immediate loading, SAE mini-implants may provide more stable retention than machined mini-implants.
OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the stability and resistance to orthodontic forces of immediately loaded sandblasted and acid-etched (SAE) mini-implants and those of machined-surface implants of the same size and shape. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two types of mini-implants were used in the tibiae of 44 rabbits; some had an SAE surface and some had machined surfaces. Orthodontic loading of 150 g was applied immediately after placement. The success rates and maximum removal torque values (RTVs) of 412 mini-implants were recorded and compared immediately after placement, 3 days after placement, and 1, 6, and 10 weeks after placement. The RTV data were analyzed using multiple regression analysis to evaluate differences with respect to surface treatment, loading, and loading periods (P < .05). Multiple comparisons using the Scheffé method were performed to evaluate the RTVs for the subsequent loading periods. RESULTS: Thirteen mini-implants failed during the experimental period. The SAE group had a higher RTV than the machined group, and there was significant difference in RTVs in accordance with loading periods (P < .001). However, there was no significant RTV difference between loaded and unloaded mini-implants. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis was supported. Both SAE mini-implants and machined mini-implants can be loaded immediately and experience similar success rates. RTVs were higher for the SAE mini-implants than for the machined mini-implants. The latter finding suggests that, for immediate loading, SAE mini-implants may provide more stable retention than machined mini-implants.
Authors: Sarandeep S Huja; Alan S Litsky; F Mike Beck; Kenneth A Johnson; Peter E Larsen Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.650