| Literature DB >> 24382059 |
Manuel Nienkemper, Benedict Wilmes, Alexander Pauls, Dieter Drescher.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Aim of the study was to assess the impact of the length of mini-implants inserted in the midpalatal region on the stability at the initial healing period.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24382059 PMCID: PMC4029568 DOI: 10.1186/1746-160X-9-30
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Head Face Med ISSN: 1746-160X Impact factor: 2.151
Comparison regarding gender and age between the groups
| Gender: | 10 male | 10 female | 11 male | 8 female | n.s. | Chi-square-test |
| Age (years): | 15.62 | 7.19 | 15.55 | 7.34 | n.s. | Mann.Whitney- |
| * p < .05 | **p < .001 | ***p < .0001 |
Figure 12 × 11 mm mini-implant inserted in the median part of the anterior palate between the second and third palatine rugae.
Initial values for RFA, insertion torque (IT) and soft tissue thickness (ST)
| | | | | | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| STT (mm) | 1.55 | 0.6 | 1.5 | 0.55 | n.s. | |
| ID (mm) | 9.45 | 0.60 | 7.5 | 0.55 | *** | |
| IT (Nmm) | 17.85 | 3.75 | 16.81 | 3.54 | n.s. | |
| RFA (ISQ) | 33.35 | 3.53 | 36.14 | 6.08 | n.s. | |
| * p < .05 | **p < .001 | ***p < .0001 |
Correlations between RFA, insertion torque (IT) and soft tissue thickness (ST) (2 × 11 mm)
| ID - IT | 0.31 | 0.18 | 0.1 |
| RFA-IT | 0.26 | 0.27 | 0.07 |
| RFA-ID | 0.59 | <0.01 | 0.35 |
RFA values (ISQ) at each measuring point (2 × 11 mm)
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | 3.53 | 3.99 | 4.46 | 6.00 | ||||
| length | 33.55 | 3.92 | 28.35 | 4.43 | 24.62 | 4.39 | 23.30 | 5.90 |
| square | 33.15 | 3.27 | 27.85 | 3.91 | 24.65 | 4.82 | 22.50 | 6.30 |
| | ns | | ns | | ns | | ns | |
| * p < .05 | **p < .001 | ***p < .0001 |
Changes in mini-implant stability over time measured by RFA (ISQ)
| | | | | | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test (2x11mm) | −5.25 | 3.53 | −3.45 | 3.66 | −1.73 | 3.88 | −10.45 | 5.22 |
| | ** | | * | | ns | | *** | |
| Control (2x9mm) | −4.03 | 6.08 | −7.89 | 5.92 | −1.72 | 3.53 | −13.63 | 9.49 |
| | ns | | ** | | ns | | *** | |
| * p < .05 | **p < .001 | ***p < .0001 |
Figure 2Stability of 2 × 11 mm mini-implants over six weeks by means of RFA (ISQ).
Comparison of RFA values (ISQ) at each measuring point
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test (2x11 mm) | 3.53 | 3.99 | 4.46 | 6 | ||||
| Control (2x9 mm) | 6.08 | 5.57 | 7.19 | 6.69 | ||||
| Difference | | | | | ||||
| p | 0.086 | | 0.013 | | 0.833 | | 0.848 | |
| | n.s. | | * | | n.s. | | n.s. | |
| * p < .05 | **p < .001 | ***p < .0001 |
Figure 3Comparison of the stability of 2 × 11 mm and 2 × 9 mm mini-implants over six weeks by means of RFA (ISQ).