» Articles » PMID: 21889080

Computed Tomographic Characterization of Mini-implant Placement Pattern and Maximum Anchorage Force in Human Cadavers

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Dentistry
Date 2011 Sep 6
PMID 21889080
Citations 11
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this investigation was to characterize the placement pattern and factors influencing the primary stability of mini-implants in human cadavers. The factors studied were mini-implant length, placement depth, bone density, and bone type.

Methods: Sixty standard mini-implants (6, 8, and 10 mm; 20 of each size) were placed into the maxillas and mandibles of 5 fresh human cadavers. Computed tomography imaging was used to measure the placement pattern, bone density, and thickness surrounding each device. The mini-implants were subsequently subjected to increasing tensile forces (pull-out force) until failure, and the maximum mechanical anchorage force of each was recorded with a dynamometer. A statistical model was realized by using MATLAB version 7.5.0 with Statistics Toolbox 7 (MathWorks, Natick, Mass) including the maximum anchorage force, mini-implant length, bone type, placement depth, and density surrounding each section of the mini-implant.

Results: Placement depth was strongly dependent on mini-implant length: 15% of the 6-mm implants failed to anchor their parallel sections into cortical bone, but 95% of the 10-mm mini-implant parallel sections penetrated beyond the buccal cortical bone; all 20 tips of the 6-mm mini-implants (100%) reached cancellous bone, whereas 75% of the 10-mm implants penetrated both cortical plates, reaching the lingual cortical bone. Longer mini-implants were associated with greater incidences of sinus and bicortical perforations. The correlation coefficients between the initial maximum mechanical anchorage force and the studied factors were as follows: bone density and placement depth combined (r = 0.65, P <0.001), mini-implant length (r = 0.45, P = 0.004), bone density (r = 0.42, P = 0.007), and placement depth (r = 0.29, P = 0.06).

Conclusions: During mini-implant length selection, the clinician should consider the important trade-off between anchorage and risk of placement complications or damage to the tissues. Longer mini-implants enable more anchorage; however, they are associated with a higher risk of damage to neighboring structures. Placement depth and bone density at the site of mini-implant placement are the best predictors of primary stability.

Citing Articles

Comparative biomechanical analysis of four different tooth- and bone-borne frog appliances for molar distalization : A three-dimensional finite element study.

Wang X, Li D, Xu X, Liu J, Al-Gumaei W, Xue H J Orofac Orthop. 2024; .

PMID: 39179928 DOI: 10.1007/s00056-024-00535-0.


Effects of Rigid and Nonrigid Connections between the Miniscrew and Anchorage Tooth on Dynamics, Efficacy, and Adverse Effects of Maxillary Second Molar Protraction: A Finite Element Analysis.

Mazhari M, Moradinejad M, Mazhary M, Rekabi A, Rakhshan V Biomed Res Int. 2022; 2022:4714347.

PMID: 36277899 PMC: 9586811. DOI: 10.1155/2022/4714347.


3-D Evaluation of temporary skeletal anchorage sites in the maxilla.

Zago H, Navarro R, Laranjeira V, Fernandes T, Conti A, Oltramari P J Clin Exp Dent. 2021; 13(11):e1131-e1139.

PMID: 34824700 PMC: 8601705. DOI: 10.4317/jced.57574.


Effect of Microimplant Neck Design with and without Microthread on Pullout Strength and Destruction Volume.

Tseng Y, Chen H, Hsiao S, Hsu K, Chen C Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(20).

PMID: 34683583 PMC: 8541548. DOI: 10.3390/ma14205991.


Anatomical study of the maxillary tuberosity using cone beam computed tomography.

Manzanera E, Llorca P, Manzanera D, Garcia-Sanz V, Sada V, Paredes-Gallardo V Oral Radiol. 2018; 34(1):56-65.

PMID: 30484092 DOI: 10.1007/s11282-017-0284-x.