The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Orthodontic Mini-implants in the Transmucosal Profile Region

Adelson Mota de Aguiar, Arilton Mota de Aguiar, Célia Regina Maio Pinzan-Vercelino, Fausto Silva Bramante

Citation Information : de Aguiar AM, de Aguiar AM, Pinzan-Vercelino CR, Bramante FS. Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Orthodontic Mini-implants in the Transmucosal Profile Region. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (5):372-375.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1692

Published Online: 00-05-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

This study sought to compare the fracture resistance of three trademarked orthodontic mini-implants in the transmucosal profile region. Thirty-six mini-implants of three different brands, separated into groups I, II and III, were tested. Each group consisted of 12 mini-implants of 6 mm in length. The mean diameter and length of the transmucosal profile of the mini-implants were 1.90 and 2.0 mm in group I, 1.77 and 1.0 mm in group II and 1.50 and 1.0 mm in group III, respectively. The tests were performed on a universal testing machine in compression mode, with a 2,000 kgf load, a speed of 4.0 mm per minute and a chisel-shaped active tip, which acted crosssectionally on the transmucosal profile. Single-criterion analysis of variance was used to compare the three brands. A significance level of 5% and test power of 80% were adopted. The mean fracture resistance achieved by the mini-implants was 172.03 ± 25.59 N for group I, 162.35 ± 30.81 N for group II and 139.69 ± 42.99 N for group III. There was no statistically significant difference in mean fracture resistance among the tested mini-implant brands.

Conclusion

The transmucosal profile diameter does not seem to be a deciding factor in the choice of mini-implants to minimize the risk of fractures.

Clinical significance

Although being an in vitro study it is possible to believe that this new brand has a very satisfactory resistance to fracture and enables its use with great efficiency.

How to cite this article

de Aguiar AM, Bramante FS, de Aguiar AM, Pinzan-Vercelino CRM. Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Orthodontic Mini-implants in the Transmucosal Profile Region. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(5):372-375.


PDF Share
  1. The prevalence of dental anomalies in orthodontic patients at the State University of New York at Buffalo. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(3):518-523.
  2. Skeletal anchorage in orthodontics with mini-implants. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2006;11(4):126-156.
  3. Skeletal anchorage with implants: daily incorporation of the technique in the orthodontic practice. Rev Clin Ortod Dental Press 2006;5(4):85-100.
  4. Complications and risk factors (Trilogy-part III). Implant News 2005;2(2):163-166.
  5. Miniscrew implants as temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a comprehensive review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(5):993-999.
  6. Orthodontic anchorage with miniimplants: factors of success. Rev Bras Odontol 2009;66(2):177-182.
  7. Effect of mini-implant diameter on fracture risk and self-drilling efficacy. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2011;140(4):181-192.
  8. Insertion and remotion torque of mini screw orthodontic implant. Rev Bras Implant 2005;11(3):5-8.
  9. Risks and complications of orthodontic miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007;131(Suppl 4)43-51.
  10. Comparison of the fracture torque of different Brazilian mini-implants. Braz Oral Res 2011;25(2):116-121.
  11. Effect of autoclaving on the fracture torque of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. J Orthod 2011;38(1):15-20.
  12. Evaluation of insertion, removal and fracture torques of different orthodontic mini-implants in bovine tibia cortex. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2008;13(5):76-87.
  13. Assessment of flexural strength and fracture of orthodontic mini-implants. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2008;13(5):128-133.
  14. Characterization of the mini-implants used to orthodontic anchorage. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2008;13(5):49-56.
  15. Impact of insertion depth and predrilling diameter on primary stability of orthodontic miniimplants. Angle Orthod 2009;79(4):609-614.
  16. Fracture resistance of orthodontic mini-implants: a biomechanical in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 2011;33(4):396-401.
  17. Threedimensional finite element analysis of strength, stability, and stress distribution in orthodontic anchorage: a conical, selfdrilling miniscrew implant system. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2012;141(3):327-336.
  18. Morphological observations and fractological considerations on orthodontics miniscrews. Minerva Stomatol 2010;59(9):465-476.
  19. Standard Specification for Wrought Titanium 6 Aluminum-4 Vanadium ELI (Extra Low Interstitial) Alloy for Surgical Implant Applications (UNS R56401). ASTM International: West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2013. p. 5.
  20. Biomechanical characteristics of microimplant for anchorage in orthodontics: a 3D finite element model study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(6):1076-1079.
  21. Mechanical loading of orthodontic miniscrews-significance and problems: an experimental study. Biomed Tech (Berl) 2008;53(5):242-245.
  22. In vitro evaluation of insertion and removal torques of orthodontic mini-implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2011;40(1):80-85.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.