OBJECTIVE: : The aim of the present ex-vivo study was to evaluate the effect of the vertical placement angle of mini-implants on primary stability by analyzing maximum insertion torque (MIT). METHODS: : Mini-implants were placed in 30 human cadavers, inserted at either a 90° or 60° angle to the buccal surface of the maxillary first molar. Out of 60 self-drilling mini-implants used, half were of the cylindrical type and half were of the conical type. Primary stability was assessed by means of measuring the MIT. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Newman-Keuls tests. A significance level of 5% was adopted. RESULTS: : The MIT was higher for both mini-implant types when they were placed at a 90° angle (17.27 and 14.40 Ncm) compared with those placed at a 60° angle (14.13 and 11.40 Ncm). CONCLUSIONS: : MIT values were differed according to the vertical mini-implant placement angle in the maxillary posterior area. Regardless of the type of mini-implant used, placement at a 90° angle resulted in a higher MIT.
OBJECTIVE: : The aim of the present ex-vivo study was to evaluate the effect of the vertical placement angle of mini-implants on primary stability by analyzing maximum insertion torque (MIT). METHODS: : Mini-implants were placed in 30 human cadavers, inserted at either a 90° or 60° angle to the buccal surface of the maxillary first molar. Out of 60 self-drilling mini-implants used, half were of the cylindrical type and half were of the conical type. Primary stability was assessed by means of measuring the MIT. Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Newman-Keuls tests. A significance level of 5% was adopted. RESULTS: : The MIT was higher for both mini-implant types when they were placed at a 90° angle (17.27 and 14.40 Ncm) compared with those placed at a 60° angle (14.13 and 11.40 Ncm). CONCLUSIONS: : MIT values were differed according to the vertical mini-implant placement angle in the maxillary posterior area. Regardless of the type of mini-implant used, placement at a 90° angle resulted in a higher MIT.
Authors: M Issa Fathima Jasmine; A Arif Yezdani; Faisal Tajir; R Murali Venu Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: A Silvestrini Biavati; S Tecco; M Migliorati; F Festa; G Panza; G Marzo; E Gherlone; S Tetè Journal: Orthod Craniofac Res Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Bruno Di Leonardo; Björn Ludwig; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Luca Contardo; Rossano Mura; Jan Hourfar Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 1.938