Abstract
Orthodontic mini-implants are used in clinical practice to provide efficient and aesthetically-pleasing anchorage. AIM: To evaluate the hardness Vickers hardness and chemical composition of mini-implant titanium alloys from five commercial brands. METHODS: Thirty self-drilling mini-implants, six each from the following commercial brands, were used: Neodent NEO, Morelli MOR, Sin SIN, Conexao CON, and Rocky Mountain RMO. The hardness and chemical composition of the titanium alloys were performed by the Vickers hardness test and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, respectively. RESULTS: Vickers hardness was significantly higher in SIN implants than in NEO, MOR, and CON implants. Similarly, VH was significantly higher in RMO implants than in MOR and NEO ones. In addition, VH was higher in CON implants than in NEO ones. There were no significant differences in the proportions of titanium and aluminum in the mini-implant alloy of the five commercial brands. Conversely, the proportion of vanadium differed significantly between CON and MOR/NEO implants. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-implants of different brands presented distinct properties of hardness and composition of the alloy.
Highlights
Received for publication: November 05, 2014 Accepted: January 29, 2015Correspondence to: Nádia LunardiIn recent decades, there has been a growing demand for orthodontic treatment in dental offices by adult patients, which required the development of an efficient and aesthetically-pleasing anchorage system to enable and expedite treatment
Given the wide diversity of mini-implant types available in the market, this study aimed to evaluate the chemical composition and Vickers hardness (VH) of five orthodontic mini-implant commercial brands to determine whether their properties are suitable for clinical use
VH was significantly higher in Rocky Mountain (RMO) implants than in MOR and NEO ones
Summary
There has been a growing demand for orthodontic treatment in dental offices by adult patients, which required the development of an efficient and aesthetically-pleasing anchorage system to enable and expedite treatment. The ease of installation and removal, possibility of insertion in different intraoral regions, low cost, small healing time, and good patient acceptance all contribute to the diffusion of the technique[2,3,4]. Several studies have demonstrated the clinical efficacy of this anchorage technique[5,6,7], but clinical practice exposes some disadvantages such as screw breakage during installation, the possibility of osseointegration making removal difficult, and the lack of stability with subsequent mini-implant loss. The alloy used for mini-implant production should be nontoxic, biocompatible, have good mechanical
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
