Cargando…

Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy

OBJECTIVE: To compare in vivo orthodontic mini-implants (MI) of smooth (machined) and rough (acid etched) surfaces, assessing primary and secondary stability. METHODS: Thirty-six (36) MI were inserted in the mandibles of six (6) dogs. Each animal received six (6) MI. In the right hemiarch, three (3)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vilani, Giselle Naback Lemes, Ruellas, Antônio Carlos de Oliveira, Elias, Carlos Nelson, Mattos, Cláudia Trindade
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dental Press International 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4644917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26560819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.035-042.oar
_version_ 1782400722780815360
author Vilani, Giselle Naback Lemes
Ruellas, Antônio Carlos de Oliveira
Elias, Carlos Nelson
Mattos, Cláudia Trindade
author_facet Vilani, Giselle Naback Lemes
Ruellas, Antônio Carlos de Oliveira
Elias, Carlos Nelson
Mattos, Cláudia Trindade
author_sort Vilani, Giselle Naback Lemes
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To compare in vivo orthodontic mini-implants (MI) of smooth (machined) and rough (acid etched) surfaces, assessing primary and secondary stability. METHODS: Thirty-six (36) MI were inserted in the mandibles of six (6) dogs. Each animal received six (6) MI. In the right hemiarch, three (3) MI without surface treatment (smooth) were inserted, whereas in the left hemiarch, another three (3) MI with acid etched surfaces (rough) were inserted. The two distal MI in each hemiarch received an immediate load of 1.0 N for 16 weeks, whereas the MI in the mesial extremity was not subject to loading. Stability was measured by insertion and removal torque, initial and final mobility and by inter mini-implant distance. RESULTS: There was no statistical behavioral difference between smooth and rough MI. High insertion torque and reduced initial mobility were observed in all groups, as well as a reduction in removal torques in comparison with insertion torque. Rough MI presented higher removal torque and lower final mobility in comparison to smooth MI. MI did not remain static, with displacement of rough MI being smaller in comparison with smooth MI, but with no statistical difference. CONCLUSIONS: MI primary stability was greater than stability measured at removal. There was no difference in stability between smooth and rough MI when assessing mobility, displacement and insertion as well as removal torques.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4644917
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Dental Press International
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-46449172015-11-23 Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy Vilani, Giselle Naback Lemes Ruellas, Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Elias, Carlos Nelson Mattos, Cláudia Trindade Dental Press J Orthod Articles OBJECTIVE: To compare in vivo orthodontic mini-implants (MI) of smooth (machined) and rough (acid etched) surfaces, assessing primary and secondary stability. METHODS: Thirty-six (36) MI were inserted in the mandibles of six (6) dogs. Each animal received six (6) MI. In the right hemiarch, three (3) MI without surface treatment (smooth) were inserted, whereas in the left hemiarch, another three (3) MI with acid etched surfaces (rough) were inserted. The two distal MI in each hemiarch received an immediate load of 1.0 N for 16 weeks, whereas the MI in the mesial extremity was not subject to loading. Stability was measured by insertion and removal torque, initial and final mobility and by inter mini-implant distance. RESULTS: There was no statistical behavioral difference between smooth and rough MI. High insertion torque and reduced initial mobility were observed in all groups, as well as a reduction in removal torques in comparison with insertion torque. Rough MI presented higher removal torque and lower final mobility in comparison to smooth MI. MI did not remain static, with displacement of rough MI being smaller in comparison with smooth MI, but with no statistical difference. CONCLUSIONS: MI primary stability was greater than stability measured at removal. There was no difference in stability between smooth and rough MI when assessing mobility, displacement and insertion as well as removal torques. Dental Press International 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4644917/ /pubmed/26560819 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.035-042.oar Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
spellingShingle Articles
Vilani, Giselle Naback Lemes
Ruellas, Antônio Carlos de Oliveira
Elias, Carlos Nelson
Mattos, Cláudia Trindade
Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy
title Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy
title_full Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy
title_fullStr Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy
title_full_unstemmed Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy
title_short Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy
title_sort stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4644917/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26560819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.035-042.oar
work_keys_str_mv AT vilanigisellenabacklemes stabilityofsmoothandroughminiimplantsclinicalandbiomechanicalevaluationaninvivostudy
AT ruellasantoniocarlosdeoliveira stabilityofsmoothandroughminiimplantsclinicalandbiomechanicalevaluationaninvivostudy
AT eliascarlosnelson stabilityofsmoothandroughminiimplantsclinicalandbiomechanicalevaluationaninvivostudy
AT mattosclaudiatrindade stabilityofsmoothandroughminiimplantsclinicalandbiomechanicalevaluationaninvivostudy