Cargando…
Mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive
OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to perform a histological evaluation of a titanium mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. Shear strength and fracture patterns that occurred immediately, 30 and 60 days after insertion with or without N-2-butyl-cyanoacrylate adhesive were evaluated....
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Dental Press International
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677335/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31390453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.3.071-078.oar |
_version_ | 1783440906612899840 |
---|---|
author | Mamede, Anderson Antonio Martinez, Elizabeth Ferreira Basting, Roberta Tarkany |
author_facet | Mamede, Anderson Antonio Martinez, Elizabeth Ferreira Basting, Roberta Tarkany |
author_sort | Mamede, Anderson Antonio |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to perform a histological evaluation of a titanium mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. Shear strength and fracture patterns that occurred immediately, 30 and 60 days after insertion with or without N-2-butyl-cyanoacrylate adhesive were evaluated. METHODS: Ninety-six mini-implants (Arrow, Peclab, Brazil) were placed in the tibia of 9 male rabbits, with or without an adhesive (Vetbond™, 3M, USA). Histological evaluation was done by optical light microscope. Shear strength testing was performed, followed by fracture analysis with visual inspection. RESULTS: Close contact between the newly formed bone and the device was evidenced in the group without adhesive, whereas gaps in the group with adhesive were found. Tukey test showed similar values in both groups at the immediate time point (20.70 N without adhesive and 24.69 N with adhesive), and higher values for the non-adhesive group, after 30 and 60 days (43.98 N and 78.55 N, respectively). The values for the adhesive group were similar for the immediate time point (24.69 N), 30 days (18.23 N) and 60 days (31.98 N). The fractures were adhesive for both groups at the immediate time point. The fractures were cohesive in bone for the non-adhesive group after 30 and 60 days. CONCLUSIONS: The mini-implants showed close bone contact and required higher shear strength for removal at 30 and 60 days for the non-adhesive group. Further studies are needed to assess the proper way to remove the orthodontic anchorage without cohesive fractures in bone. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6677335 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Dental Press International |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66773352019-08-26 Mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive Mamede, Anderson Antonio Martinez, Elizabeth Ferreira Basting, Roberta Tarkany Dental Press J Orthod Original Article OBJECTIVE: The objective of the present study was to perform a histological evaluation of a titanium mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. Shear strength and fracture patterns that occurred immediately, 30 and 60 days after insertion with or without N-2-butyl-cyanoacrylate adhesive were evaluated. METHODS: Ninety-six mini-implants (Arrow, Peclab, Brazil) were placed in the tibia of 9 male rabbits, with or without an adhesive (Vetbond™, 3M, USA). Histological evaluation was done by optical light microscope. Shear strength testing was performed, followed by fracture analysis with visual inspection. RESULTS: Close contact between the newly formed bone and the device was evidenced in the group without adhesive, whereas gaps in the group with adhesive were found. Tukey test showed similar values in both groups at the immediate time point (20.70 N without adhesive and 24.69 N with adhesive), and higher values for the non-adhesive group, after 30 and 60 days (43.98 N and 78.55 N, respectively). The values for the adhesive group were similar for the immediate time point (24.69 N), 30 days (18.23 N) and 60 days (31.98 N). The fractures were adhesive for both groups at the immediate time point. The fractures were cohesive in bone for the non-adhesive group after 30 and 60 days. CONCLUSIONS: The mini-implants showed close bone contact and required higher shear strength for removal at 30 and 60 days for the non-adhesive group. Further studies are needed to assess the proper way to remove the orthodontic anchorage without cohesive fractures in bone. Dental Press International 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6677335/ /pubmed/31390453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.3.071-078.oar Text en © 2019 Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License |
spellingShingle | Original Article Mamede, Anderson Antonio Martinez, Elizabeth Ferreira Basting, Roberta Tarkany Mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive |
title | Mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive |
title_full | Mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive |
title_fullStr | Mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive |
title_full_unstemmed | Mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive |
title_short | Mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive |
title_sort | mechanical and histological evaluation of a titanium device for orthodontic anchorage, placed with or without cyanoacrylate adhesive |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6677335/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31390453 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.3.071-078.oar |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mamedeandersonantonio mechanicalandhistologicalevaluationofatitaniumdevicefororthodonticanchorageplacedwithorwithoutcyanoacrylateadhesive AT martinezelizabethferreira mechanicalandhistologicalevaluationofatitaniumdevicefororthodonticanchorageplacedwithorwithoutcyanoacrylateadhesive AT bastingrobertatarkany mechanicalandhistologicalevaluationofatitaniumdevicefororthodonticanchorageplacedwithorwithoutcyanoacrylateadhesive |