The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
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: 01-10-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; The Author(s).


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
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.