| Literature DB >> 29127605 |
Jacek Matys1,2, Rafał Flieger3, Gianluca Tenore4, Kinga Grzech-Leśniak5, Umberto Romeo4, Marzena Dominiak5.
Abstract
It is important to identify factors that affect primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants because it determines the success of treatment. We assessed mini-implant primary stability (initial mechanical engagement with the bone) placed in pig jaws. We also assessed mini-implant insertion failure rate (mini-implant fracture, mini-implants to root contact). A total of 80 taper-shaped mini-implants (Absoanchor® Model SH1312-6; Dentos Inc., Daegu, Korea) 6 mm long with a diameter of 1.1 mm were used. Bone decortication was made before mini-implant insertion by means of three different methods: Group G1: Er:YAG laser (LiteTouch®, Light Instruments, Yokneam, Israel) at energy of 300 mJ, frequency 25 Hz, fluence 38.2 J/cm2, cooling 14 ml/min, tip 1.0 × 17 mm, distance 1 mm, time of irradiation 6 s; Group G2: drill (Hager & Meisinger GmbH, Hansemannstr, Germany); Group G3: piezosurgery (Piezotom Solo, Acteon, NJ, USA). In G4 group (control), mini-implants were driven by a self-drilling method. The primary stability of mini-implants was assessed by measuring damping characteristics between the implant and the tapping head of Periotest device (Gulden-Medizinteknik, Eschenweg, Modautal, Germany). The results in range between - 8 to + 9 allowed immediate loading. Significantly lower Periotest value was found in the control group (mean 0.59 ± 1.57, 95% CI 0.7, 2.4) as compared with Er:YAG laser (mean 4.44 ± 1.64, 95% CI 3.6, 5.3), piezosurgery (mean 17.92 ± 2.73, 95% CI 16.5, 19.3), and a drill (mean 5.91 ± 1.52, 95% CI 5.2, 6.6) (p < 0.05). The highest failure rate (33.3%) during mini-implant insertion was noted for self-drilling method (G4) as compared with G1, G2, and G3 groups (p < 0.05). The small diameter decortication by Er:YAG laser appeared to provide better primary stability as compared to drill and piezosurgery. Decortication of the cortical bone before mini-implant insertion resulted in reduced risk of implant fracture or injury of adjacent teeth. The high initial stability with a smaller diameter of the mini-implant resulted in increased risk of fracture, especially for a self-drilling method.Entities:
Keywords: Er:YAG laser; Orthodontic mini-implants; Periotest; Piezosurgery; Primary stability
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29127605 PMCID: PMC5862928 DOI: 10.1007/s10103-017-2381-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Lasers Med Sci ISSN: 0268-8921 Impact factor: 3.161
Fig. 1Decortication of the bone in the area between forth premolar (P4) and first molar (M1) for mini-implant insertion. a Marked position of the MI. b Er:YAG laser tip. c A surgical drill. d Piezosurgery tip. e Measuring PTV by Periotest device
Fig. 2Assessment of the mini-implant position in the mandible using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). a 3D image of the mini-implant after insertion. b A frontal plane of the mini-implant placed in the pig mandible. c A bone density at implant’s collar level in HU units. d A bone density at implant’s apex level in HU units
The mean Periotest values (PTV) and standard deviation (SD) in the study groups
| Variable | Mean PTV ± SD | 95% CI | PTV range |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 ( | 4.44 ± 1.64 | 3.6–5.3 | 1.7–6.8 | ANOVA analysis, |
| Group 2 ( | 5.91 ± 1.52 | 5.2–6.6 | 3.6–9.2 | |
| Group 3 ( | 17.92 ± 2.73 | 16.5–19.3 | 12.6–23 | |
| Group 4 ( | 0.59 ± 1.57 | 0.7–2.4 | −2.6 - 2.3 |
95% CI confidence interval
Fig. 3The analysis of the mini-implant primary stability conjugated with the PTV after bone decortication by means of Er:YAG laser, drill, and piezosurgery
Fig. 4The failure rate for mini-implants inserted without bone preparation in control group (G4) in comparison with decorticated specimens (G1, G2, G3)