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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mamede, Anderson Antonio, Martinez, Elizabeth Ferreira, Basting, Roberta Tarkany
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