Stability of smooth and rough mini-implants: clinical and biomechanical evaluation - an in vivostudy.

Giselle Naback Lemes Vilani,Carlos Nelson Elias,Antônio Carlos De Oliveira Ruellas,Cláudia Trindade Mattos

doi:10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.035-042.oar

Abstract

Objective: To compare in vivo orthodontic mini-implants (MI) of smooth (machined) and rough (acid etched) surfaces, assessing primary and secondary stability. Methods: Thirty-six (36) MI were inserted in the mandibles of six (6) dogs. Each animal received six (6) MI. In the right hemiarch, three (3) MI without surface treatment (smooth) were inserted, whereas in the left hemiarch, another three (3) MI with acid etched surfaces (rough) were inserted. The two distal MI in each hemiarch received an immediate load of 1.0 N for 16 weeks, whereas the MI in the mesial extremity was not subject to loading. Stability was measured by insertion and removal torque, initial and final mobility and by inter mini-implant distance. Results: There was no statistical behavioral difference between smooth and rough MI. High insertion torque and reduced initial mobility were observed in all groups, as well as a reduction in removal torques in comparison with insertion torque. Rough MI presented higher removal torque and lower final mobility in comparison to smooth MI. MI did not remain static, with displacement of rough MI being smaller in comparison with smooth MI, but with no statistical difference. Conclusions: MI primary stability was greater than stability measured at removal. There was no difference in stability between smooth and rough MI when assessing mobility, displacement and insertion as well as removal torques.

Highlights

Various skeletal anchorage systems have been proposed over the last few years with a view to assisting complex treatment and reducing orthodontic treatment time
Various factors must be taken into account in order to achieve implant osseointegration, namely: material biocompatibility, implant surface conditions, patient’s conditions, the surgical technique employed and the load applied on implants after placement.[5]
Studies have shown that surface treatment applied to the active parts of mini-implants result in roughness that favors boneimplant contact.[6,7,8,9]

Summary

Introduction

Various skeletal anchorage systems have been proposed over the last few years with a view to assisting complex treatment and reducing orthodontic treatment time. Osseointegration stands for direct contact between bone and implant without interposition of soft tissue layers It is beneficial since it increases stability and raises success rates of MI as temporary anchorage devices, expanding their biomechanical possibilities.[4] Various factors must be taken into account in order to achieve implant osseointegration, namely: material biocompatibility, implant surface conditions, patient’s conditions, the surgical technique employed and the load applied on implants after placement.[5] Studies have shown that surface treatment applied to the active parts of mini-implants result in roughness that favors boneimplant contact.[6,7,8,9] Acid etching is a simple method that requires little infrastructure and results in implant roughness, making implant surface homogeneous and with a large active surface area that enables better bioadhesion.[10]

Methods

Results

Conclusion