Literature DB >> 20135250

Biomechanical properties of orthodontic miniscrews. An in-vitro study.

Britta Florvaag1, Peter Kneuertz, Frank Lazar, Jürgen Koebke, Joachim E Zöller, Bert Braumann, Robert A Mischkowski.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Comparing five commercially-available miniscrew types for skeletal anchorage with regard to the biomechanical properties influencing their primary stability.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Included in this study was a total of 196 self-tapping and self-drilling miniscrews having a diameter of 2 mm (or the largest possible diameter of the manufacturer in question), a thread shaft length of 10 mm, or the longest miniscrew supplied by the manufacturers. The screw types tested were the FAMI 2, Orlus mini-implant, T.I.T.A.N. Pin, tomas-pin and Vector TAS. Insertion and loosening torque measurements, and pullout tests in axial (0 degrees), 20 degrees and 40 degrees directions, as well as test series with and without pilot hole drilling were performed. Bovine femoral heads having the same bone mineral density (BMD) were used as bone-testing material.
RESULTS: Higher insertion torques were found for the cylindrical FAMI 2 screw, the conical Orlus mini-implant and the Vector TAS screw (with mean values of 39.2 Ncm, 32.1 Ncm and 49.5 Ncm) than for the cylindrical T.I.T.A.N. pin and tomas-pin. Insertion without predrilling led the insertion torques of all five screws to rise significantly. We noted statistically significant differences among the five screws in the pullout tests. Those highly significant differences at axial (0 degrees) and 20 degrees angles were not apparent at the 40 degrees pullout angle. Compared with the pullout forces (load) in the axial direction, the cylindrical screws' load values decreased markedly according to the angle (by up to -46.6%). The reduction in pullout force in conjunction with an increasing angle was much less pronounced in the conical screws (-0.8% to -29.0%). The tomas-pin demonstrated the highest pullout force and stiffness values throughout the tests. A total of five tomas-pins, two Orlus mini-implants and one FAMI 2 screw fractured during the pullout tests.
CONCLUSIONS: Results from our insertion torque measurements suggest that a conical screw design will provide greater primary stability than cylindrical screw types. The cylindrical screw design's superiority was evident in the pullout tests. All the miniscrews' primary stability rose after drill-free insertion. The tomas-pin screws, although biomechanically superior to the other screws, were most prone to fracture.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20135250     DOI: 10.1007/s00056-010-9933-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Orofac Orthop        ISSN: 1434-5293            Impact factor:   1.938


  25 in total

1.  Influence of cortical bone thickness and implant length on implant stability at the time of surgery--clinical, prospective, biomechanical, and imaging study.

Authors:  Ikuya Miyamoto; Yoichi Tsuboi; Eishin Wada; Hirohiko Suwa; Tadahiko Iizuka
Journal:  Bone       Date:  2005-09-08       Impact factor: 4.398

2.  Parameters affecting primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Authors:  Benedict Wilmes; Carsten Rademacher; Gudrun Olthoff; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Primary stability of a conical implant and a hybrid, cylindric screw-type implant in vitro.

Authors:  Jun Sakoh; Ulrich Wahlmann; Elmar Stender; Rer Nat; Bilal Al-Nawas; Wilfried Wagner
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2006 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.804

4.  Impact of implant design on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Authors:  Benedict Wilmes; Stephanie Ottenstreuer; Yu-Yu Su; Dieter Drescher
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Biomechanical and histomorphometric analyses of monocortical screws at placement and 6 weeks postinsertion.

Authors:  S S Huja; J Rao; J A Struckhoff; F M Beck; A S Litsky
Journal:  J Oral Implantol       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.779

6.  The effects of varying pilot hole size on the holding power of miniscrews and microscrews.

Authors:  A Gantous; J H Phillips
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  1995-06       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  Implant diameter and bone density: effect on initial stability and pull-out resistance.

Authors:  H Kido; E E Schulz; A Kumar; J Lozada; S Saha
Journal:  J Oral Implantol       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 1.779

8.  Histomorphometric and mechanical analyses of the drill-free screw as orthodontic anchorage.

Authors:  Jong-Wan Kim; Sug-Joon Ahn; Young-Il Chang
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.650

9.  "Safe zones": a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch.

Authors:  Paola Maria Poggio; Cristina Incorvati; Stefano Velo; Aldo Carano
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2006-03       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  Implant stability and histomorphometry: a correlation study in human cadavers using stepped cylinder implants.

Authors:  Emeka Nkenke; Michael Hahn; Konstanze Weinzierl; Martin Radespiel-Tröger; Friedrich Wilhelm Neukam; Klaus Engelke
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 5.977

View more
  15 in total

1.  Morphological and structural characteristics of orthodontic mini-implants.

Authors:  Saeed AlSamak; Elias Bitsanis; Margarita Makou; George Eliades
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2012-01-12       Impact factor: 1.938

2.  Histomorphometric analysis of microcrack healing after the installation of mini-implants.

Authors:  Soobin Shin; Pan-Soo Park; Seung-Hak Baek; Il-Hyung Yang
Journal:  J Periodontal Implant Sci       Date:  2015-04-29       Impact factor: 2.614

3.  Biomechanical characterisation of a degradable magnesium-based (MgCa0.8) screw.

Authors:  Hazibullah Waizy; Andreas Weizbauer; Matthias Maibaum; Frank Witte; Henning Windhagen; Arne Lucas; Berend Denkena; Andrea Meyer-Lindenberg; Fritz Thorey
Journal:  J Mater Sci Mater Med       Date:  2011-12-31       Impact factor: 3.896

4.  Expectations, acceptance and preferences of patients in treatment with orthodontic mini-implants: part II: implant removal.

Authors:  Sandra Lehnen; Fraser McDonald; Christoph Bourauel; Andreas Jäger; Martin Baxmann
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 1.938

5.  Patient expectations, acceptance and preferences in treatment with orthodontic mini-implants. A randomly controlled study. Part I: insertion techniques.

Authors:  Sandra Lehnen; Fraser McDonald; Christoph Bourauel; Martin Baxmann
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.938

6.  The effect of social media on patient acceptance of temporary anchorage devices.

Authors:  Ariane Sampson; Daniel S F Figueiredo; Huw G Jeremiah; Dauro D Oliveira; Laize R P Freitas; Michele Chahoud; Rodrigo V Soares; Martyn T Cobourne
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  Effects of monocortical and bicortical mini-implant anchorage on bone-borne palatal expansion using finite element analysis.

Authors:  Robert J Lee; Won Moon; Christine Hong
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 2.650

8.  Stability comparison between commercially available mini-implants and a novel design: part 1.

Authors:  Christine Hong; Haofu Lee; Richard Webster; Jinny Kwak; Benjamin M Wu; Won Moon
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2011-02-09       Impact factor: 2.079

9.  Angled-predrilling depth and mini-implant shape effects on the mechanical properties of self-drilling orthodontic mini-implants during the angled insertion procedure.

Authors:  Yoon-Young Heo; Keun-Chul Cho; Seung-Hak Baek
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-03-03       Impact factor: 2.079

10.  In vivo evaluation of immediately loaded stainless steel and titanium orthodontic screws in a growing bone.

Authors:  Kerstin Gritsch; Norbert Laroche; Jeanne-Marie Bonnet; Patrick Exbrayat; Laurent Morgon; Muriel Rabilloud; Brigitte Grosgogeat
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-10-04       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.