Araujo-Monsalvo VM, González-Aréas MG, Martínez-Coria E, Flores-Cuamatzi E, Araujo-Monsalvo B, Domínguez-Hernández VM

Language: English
References: 27
Page: 190-195
PDF size: 429.74 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Mini-implants are an alternative to traditional methods of anchorage in orthodontic treatment. However, there are still questions concerning their application, in particular, with the insertion angle. Objective: To determine whether the angle of insertion of the mini-implant is a determining factor in their primary stability when they support orthodontic loads. Materials and Methods: A finite element model (FEM) of tibia bone, spring and mini-implant was developed. The three-dimensional model of the rabbit tibia was constructed based on tomographic slices. The angles that were analyzed were 90°, 80°, 70°, 60°, 50°, 45°, 40°, and 30°. A horizontal force of 2 N applied to the head of the mini-implants was simulated. The von Mises stresses and displacements were determined using FEM. Results: Von Mises stresses were lower for an insertion angle of 40° followed by 90° and 70°; likewise, the displacements of the mini-implants with respect to the spring were lower for the 40° angle followed by 90° and 70°, we found a statistically significant association between the insertion angle and displacement. Conclusion: All mini-implants underwent a degree of angulation and displacement; however, mini-implants inserted to the bone surface at 40° tend to have better primary stability, and they can withstand loads immediately.

REFERENCES

1. Ritto AK. Micro implants in orthodontics. Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2004; 15:22-4.

2. Melsen B. Is the intraoral-extradental anchorage changing the spectrum of orthodontics. In: McNamara JA, editor, Implants, Microimplants, Onplants and Transplants: New Answers to Old Questions in Orthodontics? Ann Arbor, MI, USA: The University of Michigan; 2005. p. 41-68.

3. Creekmore TD, Eklund MK. The possibility of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1983;17:266-9.

4. Block MS, Almerico B, Crawford C, Gardiner D, Chang A. Bone response to functioning implants in dog mandibular alveolar ridges augmented with distraction osteogenesis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1998;13:342‑51.

5. Labahauskaite B. Jankauskas G. Implants for orthodontic anchorage. Meta-analysis. Stomatologija. 2005;7:128-32.

6. Park HS, Kwon OW, Sung JH. Micro-implant anchorage for forced eruption of impacted canines. J Clin Orthod. 2004;38:297-302.

7. Ren Y. Mini-implants for direct or indirect orthodontic anchorage. Evid Based Dent. 2009;10:113.

8. Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1997; 31:763-7.

9. Costa A, Raffaini M, Melsen B. Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: A preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1998;13:201-9.

10. Fabbroni G, Aabed S, Mizen K, Starr DG. Transalveolar screws and the incidence of dental damage: A prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2004;33:442-6.

11. Asscherickx K, Vannet BV, Wehrbein H, Sabzevar MM. Root repair after injury from mini-screw. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005;16:575-8.

12. Wilmes B, Su YY, Sadigh L, Drescher D. Predrilling force and insertion torques during orthodontic mini-implant insertion in relation to root contact. J Orofac Orthop. 2008;69 51-8.

13. Kyung HM, Park HS, Bae SM, Sung JH, Kim IB. Development of orthodontic micro-implants for intraoral anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 2003; 37:321‑8.

14. Carano A, Velo S, Leone P, Siciliani G. Clinical applications of the miniscrew anchorage system. J Clin Orthod. 2005;39:9-24.

15. Lim JE, Lim WH, Chun YS. Quantitative evaluation of cortical bone thickness and root proximity at maxillary interradicular sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement. Clin Anat. 2008;21:486-91.

16. Noble J, Karaiskos NE, Hassard TH, Hechter FJ, Wiltshire WA. Stress on bone from placement and removal of orthodontic miniscrews at different angulations. J Clin Orthod. 2009;43:332-4.

17. Wilmes B, Su YY, Drescher D. Insertion angle impact on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:1065-70.

18. Jasmine MI, Yezdani AA, Tajir F, Venu RM. Analysis of stress in bone and microimplants during en-masse retraction of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth with different insertion angulations: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141:71-80.

19. Faggion CM Jr., Listl S, Giannakopoulos NN. The methodological quality of systematic rewiews of animal studies in dentistry. Vet J. 2012;192:140-7.

20. Mapara M, Thomas BS, Bhat KM. Rabbit as an animal model for experimental research. Dent Res J. 2012;9:111-8.

21. Stübinger S, Dard M. The rabbit as experimental model for research in implant dentistry and related tissue regeneration. J Invest Surg. 2013; 26:266-82.

22. Liu TC, Chang CH, Wong TY, Liu JK. Finite element analysis of miniscrew implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141:468-76.

23. An YH. Mechanical properties of bone. In: An YH, Draughn RA, editors. Mechanical Testing of Bone and the Bone-Implant Interface. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press; 2000. p. 41-63.

24. Çifter M, Saraç M. Maxillary posterior intrusion mechanics with mini-implant anchorage evaluated with the finite element method. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011;140:e233-41.

25. Wehrbein H, Göllner P. Skeletal anchorage in orthodontics – basics and clinical application. J Orofac Orthop. 2007;68:443-61.

26. El-Beialy AR, Abou-El-Ezz AM, Attia KH, El-Bialy AM, Mostafa YA. Loss of anchorage of miniscrews: A 3-dimensional assessment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;136:700-7.

27. Brettin BT, Grosland NM, Qian F, et al. Bicortical vs monocortical orthodontic skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:625‑35.