Mechanical and Histological Effects of Resorbable Blasting Media Surface Treatment on the Initial Stability of Orthodontic Mini-Implants

Overview

Journal Biomed Res Int

Publisher Wiley

Specialties Biomedical Engineering
Biotechnology
General Medicine

Date 2016 Mar 5

PMID 26942200

Citations 6

Authors

Odontuya Gansukh

Jong-Wha Jeong

Jong-Wan Kim

Jong-Ho Lee

Tae-Woo Kim

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Introduction. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of resorbable blasting media (RBM) treatment on early stability of orthodontic mini-implants by mechanical, histomorphometric, and histological analyses. Methods. Ninety-six (64 for mechanical study and 32 for histological study and histomorphometric analysis) titanium orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) with machined (machined group) or RBM-treated (CaP) surface (RBM group) were implanted in the tibiae of 24 rabbits. Maximum initial torque (MIT) was measured during insertion, and maximum removal torque (MRT) and removal angular momentum (RAM) were measured at 2 and 4 weeks after implantation. Bone-to-implant contact (BIC) and bone area (BA) were analyzed at 4 weeks after implantation. Results. RBM group exhibited significantly lower MIT and significantly higher MRT and RAM at 2 weeks than machined group. No significant difference in MRT, RAM, and BIC between the two groups was noted at 4 weeks, although BA was significantly higher in RBM group than in machined group. RBM group showed little bone resorption, whereas machined group showed new bone formation after bone resorption. Conclusions. RBM surface treatment can provide early stability of OMIs around 2 weeks after insertion, whereas stability of machined surface OMIs may decrease in early stages because of bone resorption, although it can subsequently recover by new bone apposition.

Citing Articles

Development and in vitro testing of an orthodontic miniscrew for use in the mandible.

Bauer C, Karl P, Mielke J, Roser C, Lux C, Scheurer M J Orofac Orthop. 2024; .

PMID: 39589499 DOI: 10.1007/s00056-024-00560-z.

Surface Treatment of Dental Mini-Sized Implants and Screws: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Figueiredo A, Travassos R, Nunes C, Prata Ribeiro M, Santos M, Iaculli F J Funct Biomater. 2024; 15(3).

PMID: 38535261 PMC: 10971647. DOI: 10.3390/jfb15030068.

Functionality testing of an innovative biomechanically optimized and surface-modified orthodontic mini-screw-a comparative study.

Duske K, Turan B, Prinz C, Lenz J, Stahl F, Warkentin M J Orofac Orthop. 2024; .

PMID: 38224419 DOI: 10.1007/s00056-023-00508-9.

Survival rate and stability of surface-treated and non-surface-treated orthodontic mini-implants: a randomized clinical trial.

Ravi J, Duraisamy S, Rajaram K, Kannan R, Arumugam E Dental Press J Orthod. 2023; 28(2):e2321345.

PMID: 37283426 PMC: 10241510. DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.28.2.e2321345.oar.

Effect of surface treatment on the mechanical stability of orthodontic miniscrews.

Al-Thomali Y, Basha S, Mohamed R Angle Orthod. 2021; 92(1):127-136.

PMID: 34338745 PMC: 8691481. DOI: 10.2319/020721-111.1.

References

Kim J, Ahn S, Chang Y . Histomorphometric and mechanical analyses of the drill-free screw as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(2):190-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.01.030. View

Costa A, Raffainl M, Melsen B . Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: a preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1998; 13(3):201-9. View

Carney L, Campbell P, Spears R, Ceen R, Melo A, Buschang P . Effects of pilot holes on longitudinal miniscrew stability and bony adaptation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146(5):554-64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.017. View

Wu T, Kuang S, Wu C . Factors associated with the stability of mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage: a study of 414 samples in Taiwan. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009; 67(8):1595-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.015. View

Poggio P, Incorvati C, Velo S, Carano A . "Safe zones": a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch. Angle Orthod. 2006; 76(2):191-7. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0191:SZAGFM]2.0.CO;2. View

Gotfredsen K, Berglundh T, Lindhe J . Bone reactions adjacent to titanium implants with different surface characteristics subjected to static load. A study in the dog (II). Clin Oral Implants Res. 2001; 12(3):196-201. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2001.012003196.x. View

Gotfredsen K, Wennerberg A, Johansson C, Skovgaard L, Hjorting-Hansen E . Anchorage of TiO2-blasted, HA-coated, and machined implants: an experimental study with rabbits. J Biomed Mater Res. 1995; 29(10):1223-31. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820291009. View

Ahn H, Chung K, Kang S, Lin L, Nelson G, Kim S . Correction of dental Class III with posterior open bite by simple biomechanics using an anterior C-tube miniplate. Korean J Orthod. 2012; 42(5):270-8. PMC: 3495259. DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.5.270. View

Duyck J, Roesems R, Cardoso M, Ogawa T, de Villa Camargos G, Vandamme K . Effect of insertion torque on titanium implant osseointegration: an animal experimental study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013; 26(2):191-6. DOI: 10.1111/clr.12316. View

10.

Liu R, Lei T, Dusevich V, Yao X, Liu Y, Walker M . Surface characteristics and cell adhesion: a comparative study of four commercial dental implants. J Prosthodont. 2013; 22(8):641-51. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12063. View

11.

Ericsson I, Johansson C, Bystedt H, Norton M . A histomorphometric evaluation of bone-to-implant contact on machine-prepared and roughened titanium dental implants. A pilot study in the dog. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1994; 5(4):202-6. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.1994.050402.x. View

12.

Donath K, Breuner G . A method for the study of undecalcified bones and teeth with attached soft tissues. The Säge-Schliff (sawing and grinding) technique. J Oral Pathol. 1982; 11(4):318-26. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0714.1982.tb00172.x. View

13.

Reynders R, Ronchi L, Bipat S . Mini-implants in orthodontics: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(5):564.e1-19. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.09.026. View

14.

Vidigal Jr G, Aragones L, Campos Jr A, Groisman M . Histomorphometric analyses of hydroxyapatite-coated and uncoated titanium dental implants in rabbit cortical bone. Implant Dent. 2000; 8(3):295-302. DOI: 10.1097/00008505-199903000-00015. View

15.

Coelho P, Granjeiro J, Romanos G, Suzuki M, Silva N, Cardaropoli G . Basic research methods and current trends of dental implant surfaces. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2008; 88(2):579-96. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.31264. View

16.

Sul Y, Johansson C, Albrektsson T . Which surface properties enhance bone response to implants? Comparison of oxidized magnesium, TiUnite, and Osseotite implant surfaces. Int J Prosthodont. 2006; 19(4):319-28. View

17.

Brunette D . The effects of implant surface topography on the behavior of cells. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1988; 3(4):231-46. View

18.

Piattelli M, Scarano A, Paolantonio M, Iezzi G, Petrone G, Piattelli A . Bone response to machined and resorbable blast material titanium implants: an experimental study in rabbits. J Oral Implantol. 2002; 28(1):2-8. DOI: 10.1563/1548-1336(2002)028<0002:BRTMAR>2.3.CO;2. View

19.

Umemori M, Sugawara J, Mitani H, Nagasaka H, Kawamura H . Skeletal anchorage system for open-bite correction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 115(2):166-74. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70345-8. View

20.

Coelho P, Bonfante E, Pessoa R, Marin C, Granato R, Giro G . Characterization of five different implant surfaces and their effect on osseointegration: a study in dogs. J Periodontol. 2010; 82(5):742-50. DOI: 10.1902/jop.2010.100520. View