4.3 Article

Rotational Resistance of Surface-Treated Mini-implants

期刊

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
卷 79, 期 5, 页码 899-907

出版社

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/090608-466.1

关键词

Partial osseointegration; Mini-implant; Torque value; Rotational moment; Angular momentum

资金

  1. Korean Society of Speedy Orthodontics
  2. Uijeongbu St Mary's Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the stability and resistance to rotational moments of early loaded sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) mini-implants and those of machined-surface implants of the same size and shape. Materials and Methods: A randomized complete block design was used in 12 skeletally mature male beagle dogs. Ninety-six orthodontic mini-implants were tested. Two types of implants were used: some had SLA surface treatment and some had machined surfaces without coating. After 3 weeks of healing, rotational moments of 150 g were applied. The success rates, maximum torque values, angular momentum, and total energy absorbed by the bone were compared. All values were subjected to mixed-model analysis to evaluate the influence of surface treatment, rotational force direction, and site of implantation. Results: The maximum insertion torque and angular momentum of SLA implants were significantly lower than those of machined implants (P = .034, P = .039). The SLA implants had a significantly higher value for total removal energy than the machined implants (P = .046). However, there were no significant differences in total insertion energy, maximum removal torque, and removal angular momentum between the 2 groups. There was no significant difference between clockwise and counterclockwise rotation in all measurements. Conclusion: SLA mini-implants showed relatively lower insertion torque value and angular momentum and higher total energy during removal than the machined implants, suggesting osseointegration of the SLA mini-implant after insertion. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:899-907.)

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据