Literature DB >> 31890126

Effects of cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone density on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Chin-Yun Pan1,2, Pao-Hsin Liu3, Yu-Chuan Tseng1,2, Szu-Ting Chou1,2, Chao-Yi Wu1,2, Hong-Po Chang1,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND/
PURPOSE: Mini-implant screws are now routinely used as anchorage devices in orthodontic treatments. This study used synthetic bone models to investigate how the primary stability of an orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) as measured by resonance frequency (RF) is affected by varying cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone density.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three synthetic cortical shells (thicknesses of 1, 2, and 3 mm) and three polyurethane foam blocks (densities of 40, 20, and 10 pound/cubic foot) were used to represent jawbones of varying cortical bone thicknesses and varying trabecular bone densities. Twenty-five stainless steel OMIs (2 × 10 mm) were sequentially inserted into artificial bone blocks to depths of 2, 4, and 6 mm. Five experimental groups of bone blocks with OMIs were examined by Implomates® RF analyzer. Statistical and correlation analyses were performed by Kruskal-Wallis test, Wilcoxon rank-sum test, and simple linear regression.
RESULTS: As trabecular bone density decreased, RF decreased; as cortical bone thickness decreased, RF also decreased. Simple linear regression analysis showed highly linear correlations between trabecular bone density and RF (R 2 > 0.99; P < 0.0001) and between cortical bone thickness and RF (R 2 > 0.98; P < 0.0001).
CONCLUSION: The stability of an OMI at the time of placement is influenced by both cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone density. Both cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone density have strong linear correlations with RF.
© 2019 Association for Dental Sciences of the Republic of China. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cortical bone thickness; Mini-implants; Primary stability; Resonance frequency; Trabecular bone density

Year:  2019        PMID: 31890126      PMCID: PMC6921117          DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2019.06.002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Sci        ISSN: 1991-7902            Impact factor:   2.080


Introduction

The need for orthodontic treatment modalities that provide maximal anchorage control but with minimal patient compliance requirements has led to the development of mini-implant anchorage devices for orthodontics. Mini-implants allow orthodontists to achieve treatment goals that were previously considered extremely difficult, if not impossible. The clinical success rate of mini-implants in orthodontics now exceeds 85%,, which is a considerable improvement from the past. However, this success rate is still unsatisfactory, especially in comparison with the success rate for dental implants (>95%). Anchorage stability is a key factor in the success of orthodontic treatment assisted with mini-implants. Orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) are used mainly for primary loading. Primary stability is an important factor in the success rate of OMIs. If primary stability is not achieved upon insertion, the OMI may loosen during orthodontic treatment. Primary stability is affected by bone quantity (bone volume), bone quality (bone density), surgical technique, and implant geometry (length, diameter, and surface characteristics).6, 7, 8 The primary stability of an OMI mainly depends on mechanical retention between the OMI and bone. Cortical bone thickness is important in the success of an OMI because insufficient cortical bone thickness often causes inadequate primary stability. Low bone density in the posterior maxilla is another major cause of implant loss. The stability of an OMI is difficult to evaluate and is often measured in terms of mobility. Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) is a noninvasive diagnostic method of assessing the stability of OMIs and dental implants. Two RFA devices that are currently in clinical use are the Osstell® (Integration Diagnostics AB, Göteborg, Sweden) and Implomates® (BioTech One, Inc., Taipei, Taiwan) devices. For clinical use in detecting resonance frequency (RF) values of an unmodified OMI, Implomates® is more convenient than Osstell®. Although the Osstell® system has been used to assess the stability of dental implants, the system is less than ideal for this purpose. For RF measurement, for example, the head designs of OMIs are not threaded to enable coupling with SmartPeg for RF measurement. The objective of this study was to determine precisely how bone quality and quantity (i.e., cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone density) correlate with primary OMI stability by using the Implomates® device to measure RF in synthetic bone samples.

Materials and methods

Orthodontic mini-implants

Twenty-five stainless steel OMIs (2.0 mm in diameter and 10 mm in length; Bio-Ray Biotech Instruments Co., Ltd., New Taipei City, Taiwan) were used for the experiments in this study (five mini-implants per experimental group). The OMIs were placed without pre-drilling. Each OMI was inserted manually with a hand driver. Measurements of RF were performed in OMIs sequentially inserted to depths of 2, 4, and 6 mm.

Bone specimens

Mechanical test blocks of artificial bone (Sawbones®; Pacific Research Laboratories Inc., Vashon Island, WA, USA) were selected as a jaw bone equivalent (Table 1). The mean bone mineral density was 0.55 g/cm3 for the anterior maxilla and 0.31 g/cm3 for the posterior maxilla. Polyurethane foam blocks of artificial bone with densities of 40 pcf (pound/cubic foot) (0.64 g/cm3), 20 pcf (0.32 g/cm3), and 10 pcf (0.16 g/cm3) were selected as the trabecular bone equivalent in the experimental groups. For trabecular bone samples, the moduli of elasticity were 759, 210, and 58 MPa. The average cortical bone thickness ranged from 1.09 to 2.12 mm in the maxilla and from 1.59 to 3.03 mm in the mandible. Sheets of artificial bone used in the experiments had cortical layer thicknesses of 1, 2, and 3 mm and an elastic modulus of 16.7 GPa.
Table 1

Mechanical properties of artificial bone (Sawbones®) used in this study.

DensityCompressive
Tensile
StrengthModulusStrengthModulus
Cortical bone1.64 g/cm3157 MPa16.7 GPa157 MPa16 GPa
Trabecular bone0.64 g/cm331 MPa759 MPa19 MPa1000 MPa
Trabecular bone0.32 g/cm38.4 MPa210 MPa5.6 MPa284 MPa
Trabecular bone0.16 g/cm32.2 MPa58 MPa2.1 MPa86 MPa
Mechanical properties of artificial bone (Sawbones®) used in this study.

Resonance frequency analysis

The RF of OMIs inserted into artificial bone was measured at three different insertion depths (2, 4, and 6 mm). All measurements were performed with an RF analyzer (Implomates®) (Fig. 1). For each OMI, RF was measured three times at each insertion depth, and the mean RF was recorded. The mean values for the five OMIs were used as the measured variables.
Figure 1

The Implomates® resonance frequency analyzer used in this study. The device uses an impact force to excite resonance in the mini-implant screw. (A) The impact force is provided by a small electrically driven impact rod inside the transducer. (B) The received response signal is then transferred to a computer for frequency spectrum analysis.

The Implomates® resonance frequency analyzer used in this study. The device uses an impact force to excite resonance in the mini-implant screw. (A) The impact force is provided by a small electrically driven impact rod inside the transducer. (B) The received response signal is then transferred to a computer for frequency spectrum analysis.

Statistical analysis

The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare RF values for OMIs implanted under varying trabecular bone densities, varying cortical bone thicknesses, and varying insertion depths. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons were also performed by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Simple linear regression analysis was performed to determine correlations between RF and trabecular bone density and between RF and cortical bone thickness in OMIs placed at each of the three insertion depths. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. All statistical analyses were performed using JMP 8 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).

Results

Trabecular bone density versus resonance frequency

Table 2 presents the mean RFs and standard deviations for the OMIs. The OMIs were sequentially implanted into artificial bone with a cortical bone thickness of 2 mm and trabecular bone densities of 40, 20 and 10 pcf at depths of 2, 4, and 6 mm. The RF values were progressively increased with insertion depth. The Kruskal-Wallis test revealed that OMIs inserted to a depth of 2 mm did not significantly differ in RF (P = 0.1067). However, OMIs inserted to depths of 4 and 6 mm significantly differed in RF (P = 0.0111 and P = 0.0024, respectively). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons demonstrated that, at an insertion depth of 4 mm, RF values were significantly lower in Group 3 (10 pcf) than in Group 1 (40 pcf); at an insertion depth of 6 mm, RF values were significantly lower in Group 2 (20 pcf) and in Group 3 (10 pcf) than in Group 1 (40 pcf). For OMIs inserted to depths of 2, 4, and 6 mm, RF had a significant linear correlation with trabecular bone density. All R2 values exceeded 0.99 (P < 0.0001) with decreasing slopes (Group 1: β = 1.609; Group 2: β = 1.502; Group 3: β = 1.45) (Table 4 and Fig. 2). That is, as trabecular bone density decreased, RF values also decreased.
Table 2

Mean ± standard deviation of the resonance frequency values (kHz) for mini-implants inserted with different depths in artificial bone with various trabecular bone densities.

Groupn2 mm4 mm6 mm
1 (40 pcf)51.160 ± 0.0154.783 ± 0.0777.597 ± 0.070
2 (20 pcf)51.190 ± 0.1384.543 ± 0.1807.197 ± 0.175
3 (10 pcf)51.133 ± 0.0124.377 ± 0.1216.933 ± 0.059
P-valuea0.10670.01110.0024
Significant differencebGroup 3 < Group 1Group 2 < Group 1Group 3 < Group 1

Kruskal-Wallis test.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted by Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Table 4

A simple linear regression was used to analyze the relationship between the experimental groups of orthodontic mini-implants placed at 2, 4, and 6-mm depths and the measured resonance frequencies.

Groupy = α + β xβP-valueR2
1y = −1.923333 + 1.6091667 x1.6091667<0.00010.994325
2y = −1.696667 + 1.5016667 x1.5016667<0.00010.991895
3y = −1.652222 + 1.45 x1.45<0.00010.994496
4y = −1.725556 + 1.4808333 x1.4808333<0.00010.99495
5y = −1.765556 + 1.5558333 x1.5558333<0.00010.987616

x, insertion depth of orthodontic mini-implant (2, 4, and 6 mm).

y, measured resonance frequency (kHz).

Figure 2

Relationships between cortical bone thickness, trabecular bone density and measured resonance frequency values of the mini-implants.

Mean ± standard deviation of the resonance frequency values (kHz) for mini-implants inserted with different depths in artificial bone with various trabecular bone densities. Kruskal-Wallis test. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Mean ± standard deviation of the resonance frequency values (kHz) for mini-implants inserted with different depths in artificial bone with various cortical bone thicknesses. Kruskal-Wallis test. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted by Wilcoxon rank-sum test. A simple linear regression was used to analyze the relationship between the experimental groups of orthodontic mini-implants placed at 2, 4, and 6-mm depths and the measured resonance frequencies. x, insertion depth of orthodontic mini-implant (2, 4, and 6 mm). y, measured resonance frequency (kHz). Relationships between cortical bone thickness, trabecular bone density and measured resonance frequency values of the mini-implants.

Cortical bone thickness versus resonance frequency

Table 3 presents the mean RFs and standard deviations for OMIs sequentially inserted to depths of 2, 4, and 6 mm into artificial bone with a trabecular bone density of 20 pcf and cortical bone thicknesses of 1, 2 and 3 mm. The table shows that RF values increased as insertion depth increased. The RF values for OMIs inserted to a depth of 2 mm did not significantly differ (P = 0.2622). However, RF values significantly differed for OMIs with insertion depths of 4 mm (P = 0.0122) or 6 mm (P = 0.0116). Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that RF values in Group 4 (1 mm) were significantly lower than those in Group 5 (3 mm) at an insertion depth of 4 mm and were significantly lower in Group 4 (1 mm) than in Group 5 (3 mm) at an insertion depth of 6 mm. Table 4 and Fig. 2 show that RF values had significant linear correlations with cortical bone thicknesses in OMIs inserted to depths of 2, 4, and 6 mm; all R2 values were higher than 0.98 (P < 0.0001) and had decreasing slopes (Group 5: β = 1.556; Group 2: β = 1.502; Group 4: β = 1.480). As cortical bone thickness decreased, RF also decreased.
Table 3

Mean ± standard deviation of the resonance frequency values (kHz) for mini-implants inserted with different depths in artificial bone with various cortical bone thicknesses.

Groupn2 mm4 mm6 mm
5 (3 mm)51.150 ± 0.0204.850 ± 0.1117.373 ± 0.049
2 (2 mm)51.190 ± 0.1384.543 ± 0.1807.197 ± 0.175
4 (1 mm)51.123 ± 0.0194.423 ± 0.1097.047 ± 0.061
P-valuea0.26220.01220.0116
Significant differencebGroup 4 < Group 5Group 4 < Group 5

Kruskal-Wallis test.

Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted by Wilcoxon rank-sum test.

Discussion

The RF analysis is currently considered the gold standard for clinical assessment of implant stability. The Osstell® RFA device is routinely used to monitor the stability of a dental implant during treatment. A dental implant study showed that RF values measured with the Implomates® have a strong positive linear correlation with implant stability quotient (ISQ) values derived with the Ossstell® device (r = 0.991, P < 0.001). The Implomates® RFA device developed by Huang et al., utilizes an impact force for resonance excitation of an OMI. Impact force is provided by a small electrically driven rod inside the transducer. The design of the Implomates® transducer minimizes contact and no torque force is required during its application. The received response signal is then transferred to a computer for frequency spectrum analysis. High and low RF values are interpreted as high and low stability, respectively. Titanium alloy OMIs and stainless steel OMIs are currently used in orthodontic practice. Compared to titanium alloy OMIs, stainless steel OMIs have better penetration and do not require a pilot hole. Another advantage of stainless steel OMIs is their ease of placement. Our study revealed that OMI stability is significantly associated with insertion depth, which is consistent with the results of a pig study in which OMIs placed in the pelvic bone blocks showed linear associations between insertion depth and stability. However, the primary stability of an OMI mainly depends on insertion depth rather than on the implant materials (e.g., titanium alloy or stainless steel). Artificial bone was used to simulate OMIs implanted in human jaw bones. However, the cortical layer density specification of the artificial bone is only 102 pcf (1.64 g/cm3). Therefore, this study compared varying trabecular bone density to determine whether changes in bone density affect RF. According to Nackaerts et al., the bone mineral density (BMD) of the mandible ranges from 0.528 to 0.820 g/cm3 and averages 0.661 g/cm3. Based on this data, artificial bone with a density of 40 pcf (0.64 g/cm3) was used to simulate the trabecular BMD of the mandible. Artificial bone with a density of 20 pcf (0.32 g/cm3) was used to simulate the posterior maxilla, and artificial bone with a density of 10 pcf (0.16 g/cm3) was used to simulate a jawbone with low BMD. As mentioned above, the average cortical bone thickness ranges from 1.09 to 2.12 mm in the maxilla and from 1.59 to 3.03 mm in the mandible. Therefore, artificial bone with cortical layer thicknesses of 1, 2, and 3 mm were selected. Primary stability had a strong correlation with cortical bone thickness, which is in agreement with a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies. The primary stability of an OMI was positively associated with cortical bone thickness at the receptor site. However, the likelihood of OMI failure is higher in cortical bone with a thickness less than 1 mm compared to that with a thickness of 1 mm or more., Numerical analyses using finite element models have shown that deflection of OMIs decreases as cortical bone thickness increases and that cortical bone with thickness less than 1 mm is vulnerable to stresses that can cause bone resorption in this region. Motoyoshi et al., reported that a cortical bone thickness greater than 1 mm was needed for adequate primary stability and acceptable success rates in OMI placements. Deguchi et al. used three-dimensional computed tomography to evaluate cortical bone thickness in various locations in the maxilla and the mandible and to compare cortical bone thickness between implant angulation measured by 3 angulations (30°, 45°, and 90°) from the long axis of each tooth mesial and distal to the first molar and distal to the second molar. In the maxilla, cortical bone thickness in the buccal region distal to the second molar (1.3 mm) was significantly lower than that mesial and distal to the first molar (1.8 mm and 1.5 mm). Cortical bone thickness was significantly higher on the lingual side of the second molar (1.7 mm) compared with the buccal side. In the mandible, cortical bone thickness was significantly higher mesial and distal to the second molar (1.8–2.0 mm) compared with the maxilla. Additionally, cortical bone thickness at 30° to the long axis of the tooth was as much as 1.5 times higher than cortical bone thickness at 90° (perpendicular) to the long axis of the tooth. Therefore, in most clinical cases, altering the OMI insertion angle can compensate for insufficient cortical bone thickness and can increase insertion depth. A systematic review of clinical studies indicate that implant primary stability is positively associated with bone mineral density at the receptor site: as the bone density increases, the primary stability of dental implants also increases. In the present study, measured RF decreased as trabecular bone density decreased. When OMIs were implanted into artificial bone at a depth of 4 mm, RF in Group 3 (10 pcf) was significantly lower than Group 1 (40 pcf). At a depth of 6 mm, RF in Group 2 (20 pcf) and Group 3 (10 pcf) were significantly lower than Group 1. These experimental results indicate that a change in the density of the trabecular bone can be detected by a change in RF value. Skeletal anchorage with mini-implant screws is widely used in orthodontic practice because it has no patient compliance requirements. Two key determinants of primary stability are bone quality and quantity. Cortical bone quantity and quality affect the long-term stability of an OMI. Stationary anchorage failure often results from low bone density due to inadequate cortical thickness. The primary implant stability of an OMI can be estimated by computed tomography measurements of cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone density before treatment. In conclusion, the primary stability of an OMI depends on both cortical bone thickness and trabecular bone density. Furthermore, these factors have strong linear correlations with RF value. Further clinical research is still needed to confirm the findings of this in vitro study performed using synthetic bone models. Measuring RF with an Implomates® device is a practical, noninvasive, and nondestructive approach to evaluating OMI stability.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this article.
  29 in total

Review 1.  Orthodontic anchorage with specific fixtures: related study analysis.

Authors:  Lorenzo Favero; Paolo Brollo; Eriberto Bressan
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.650

2.  Quantitative evaluation of cortical bone thickness with computed tomographic scanning for orthodontic implants.

Authors:  Toru Deguchi; Miho Nasu; Kaoru Murakami; Toshinori Yabuuchi; Hiroshi Kamioka; Teruko Takano-Yamamoto
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 2.650

3.  Resonance frequency analysis and damping capacity assessment. Part 2: peri-implant bone loss follow-up. An in vitro study with the Periotest and Osstell instruments.

Authors:  Stefan Lachmann; Johannes Yves Laval; Berthold Jäger; Detlef Axmann; German Gomez-Roman; Martin Groten; Heiner Weber
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 5.977

4.  Effect of cortical bone thickness and implant placement torque on stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Authors:  Mitsuru Motoyoshi; Tohru Yoshida; Akiko Ono; Noriyoshi Shimizu
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.804

5.  Risks and complications of orthodontic miniscrews.

Authors:  Neal D Kravitz; Budi Kusnoto
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.650

6.  The effect of cortical bone thickness on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants and on the stress distribution in surrounding bone.

Authors:  M Motoyoshi; M Inaba; A Ono; S Ueno; N Shimizu
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2008-10-28       Impact factor: 2.789

7.  Correlating implant stability to bone structure.

Authors:  Julie Rozé; Stéphanie Babu; Afchine Saffarzadeh; Marie Gayet-Delacroix; Alain Hoornaert; Pierre Layrolle
Journal:  Clin Oral Implants Res       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 5.977

Review 8.  Clinical effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  M A Papadopoulos; S N Papageorgiou; I P Zogakis
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  2011-05-18       Impact factor: 6.116

9.  Cortical bone thickness in the buccal posterior region for orthodontic mini-implants.

Authors:  A Ono; M Motoyoshi; N Shimizu
Journal:  Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg       Date:  2008-03-04       Impact factor: 2.789

10.  A retrospective study on related factors affecting the survival rate of dental implants.

Authors:  Hee-Won Jang; Jeong-Kyung Kang; Ki Lee; Yong-Sang Lee; Pil-Kyoo Park
Journal:  J Adv Prosthodont       Date:  2011-12-28       Impact factor: 1.904

View more
  7 in total

Review 1.  Effect of photobiomodulation therapy on mini-implant stability: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Bo Zhang; Xinqi Huang; Sibei Huo; Chenghao Zhang; Xiao Cen; Zhihe Zhao
Journal:  Lasers Med Sci       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 3.161

2.  Significance of bone morphology and quality on the primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants: in vitro comparison between human bone substitute and artificial bone.

Authors:  Sachin Chhatwani; Ouafaa Kouji-Diehl; Kristian Kniha; Ali Modabber; Frank Hölzle; Jozsef Szalma; Gholamreza Danesh; Stephan Christian Möhlhenrich
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  [Efficacy of vertical control by using mini-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area for Angle class Ⅱ extraction patients].

Authors:  W Liang; Y Tang; W B Huang; B Han; J X Lin
Journal:  Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban       Date:  2022-04-18

4.  Palatal bone thickness at the implantation area of maxillary skeletal expander in adult patients with skeletal Class III malocclusion: a cone-beam computed tomography study.

Authors:  Weiting Chen; Kaili Zhang; Dongxu Liu
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-03-22       Impact factor: 2.757

5.  Evaluation of Optimal Sites for the Insertion of Orthodontic Mini Implants at Mandibular Symphysis Region through Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.

Authors:  Shizhen Zhang; Xiaoyu Wei; Lufei Wang; Zhouqiang Wu; Lu Liu; Xinyu Yan; Wenli Lai; Hu Long
Journal:  Diagnostics (Basel)       Date:  2022-01-23

6.  Thread shape, cortical bone thickness, and magnitude and distribution of stress caused by the loading of orthodontic miniscrews: finite element analysis.

Authors:  Takuma Sakamaki; Keiichiro Watanabe; Akihiko Iwasa; Toru Deguchi; Shinya Horiuchi; Eiji Tanaka
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-07-20       Impact factor: 4.996

7.  Ridge preservation of a novel extraction socket applying Bio-Oss® collagen: An experimental study in dogs.

Authors:  Qihang Fan; Hao Zeng; Wei Fan; Tao Wu; Jing Sun; Qi Yan; Bin Shi
Journal:  J Dent Sci       Date:  2021-04-16       Impact factor: 2.080

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.