Orthodontic mini-implant diameter does not affect in-situ linear microcrack generation in the mandible or the maxilla

Sean Shih Yao Liu, Enrique Cruz-Marroquin, Jun Sun, Kelton Stewart, Matthew Allen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Introduction: Microdamage reduces bone mechanical properties and thus could contribute to implant failure. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the diameter of mini-implants affects linear microcrack generation and whether this differs between the mandible and the maxilla because of their contrasting cortical thicknesses. Methods: Maxillary and mandibular quadrants of 5 dogs were randomly assigned to receive, in situ, no pilot drilling or mini-implant insertion (control), pilot drilling only without mini-implants, or pilot drilling plus a mini-implant of 1 of 3 diameters: 1.4 mm (n = 18), 1.6 mm (n = 18), and 2.0 mm (n = 18). Linear microcracks were assessed on basic fuchsin-stained sections by using epifluorescence microscopy. Results: Pilot drilling without mini-implant insertion produced significantly higher linear microcrack burdens in the mandible compared with the maxilla. In the both the mandible and the maxilla, all implants produced higher linear microcrack burdens than did the controls, yet there were no differences between the 3 implant diameters. Conclusions: Neither the diameter of the mini-implant nor the site of insertion (mandible vs maxilla) had a significant effect on the amount of linear microdamage adjacent to the implant when the implants were inserted after pilot drilling in situ.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)768-773
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume142
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 2012

Fingerprint

Maxilla
Orthodontics
Mandible
Microscopy
Dogs
Bone and Bones

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Orthodontic mini-implant diameter does not affect in-situ linear microcrack generation in the mandible or the maxilla. / Liu, Sean Shih Yao; Cruz-Marroquin, Enrique; Sun, Jun; Stewart, Kelton; Allen, Matthew.

In: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 142, No. 6, 12.2012, p. 768-773.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7cc676b142ea4a7bbe7cb8b205bb55e6,
title = "Orthodontic mini-implant diameter does not affect in-situ linear microcrack generation in the mandible or the maxilla",
abstract = "Introduction: Microdamage reduces bone mechanical properties and thus could contribute to implant failure. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the diameter of mini-implants affects linear microcrack generation and whether this differs between the mandible and the maxilla because of their contrasting cortical thicknesses. Methods: Maxillary and mandibular quadrants of 5 dogs were randomly assigned to receive, in situ, no pilot drilling or mini-implant insertion (control), pilot drilling only without mini-implants, or pilot drilling plus a mini-implant of 1 of 3 diameters: 1.4 mm (n = 18), 1.6 mm (n = 18), and 2.0 mm (n = 18). Linear microcracks were assessed on basic fuchsin-stained sections by using epifluorescence microscopy. Results: Pilot drilling without mini-implant insertion produced significantly higher linear microcrack burdens in the mandible compared with the maxilla. In the both the mandible and the maxilla, all implants produced higher linear microcrack burdens than did the controls, yet there were no differences between the 3 implant diameters. Conclusions: Neither the diameter of the mini-implant nor the site of insertion (mandible vs maxilla) had a significant effect on the amount of linear microdamage adjacent to the implant when the implants were inserted after pilot drilling in situ.",
author = "Liu, {Sean Shih Yao} and Enrique Cruz-Marroquin and Jun Sun and Kelton Stewart and Matthew Allen",
year = "2012",
month = "12",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.07.014",
language = "English",
volume = "142",
pages = "768--773",
journal = "American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics",
issn = "0889-5406",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Orthodontic mini-implant diameter does not affect in-situ linear microcrack generation in the mandible or the maxilla

AU - Liu, Sean Shih Yao

AU - Cruz-Marroquin, Enrique

AU - Sun, Jun

AU - Stewart, Kelton

AU - Allen, Matthew

PY - 2012/12

Y1 - 2012/12

N2 - Introduction: Microdamage reduces bone mechanical properties and thus could contribute to implant failure. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the diameter of mini-implants affects linear microcrack generation and whether this differs between the mandible and the maxilla because of their contrasting cortical thicknesses. Methods: Maxillary and mandibular quadrants of 5 dogs were randomly assigned to receive, in situ, no pilot drilling or mini-implant insertion (control), pilot drilling only without mini-implants, or pilot drilling plus a mini-implant of 1 of 3 diameters: 1.4 mm (n = 18), 1.6 mm (n = 18), and 2.0 mm (n = 18). Linear microcracks were assessed on basic fuchsin-stained sections by using epifluorescence microscopy. Results: Pilot drilling without mini-implant insertion produced significantly higher linear microcrack burdens in the mandible compared with the maxilla. In the both the mandible and the maxilla, all implants produced higher linear microcrack burdens than did the controls, yet there were no differences between the 3 implant diameters. Conclusions: Neither the diameter of the mini-implant nor the site of insertion (mandible vs maxilla) had a significant effect on the amount of linear microdamage adjacent to the implant when the implants were inserted after pilot drilling in situ.

AB - Introduction: Microdamage reduces bone mechanical properties and thus could contribute to implant failure. The objective of this study was to investigate whether the diameter of mini-implants affects linear microcrack generation and whether this differs between the mandible and the maxilla because of their contrasting cortical thicknesses. Methods: Maxillary and mandibular quadrants of 5 dogs were randomly assigned to receive, in situ, no pilot drilling or mini-implant insertion (control), pilot drilling only without mini-implants, or pilot drilling plus a mini-implant of 1 of 3 diameters: 1.4 mm (n = 18), 1.6 mm (n = 18), and 2.0 mm (n = 18). Linear microcracks were assessed on basic fuchsin-stained sections by using epifluorescence microscopy. Results: Pilot drilling without mini-implant insertion produced significantly higher linear microcrack burdens in the mandible compared with the maxilla. In the both the mandible and the maxilla, all implants produced higher linear microcrack burdens than did the controls, yet there were no differences between the 3 implant diameters. Conclusions: Neither the diameter of the mini-implant nor the site of insertion (mandible vs maxilla) had a significant effect on the amount of linear microdamage adjacent to the implant when the implants were inserted after pilot drilling in situ.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84870282315&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84870282315&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.07.014

DO - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.07.014

M3 - Article

VL - 142

SP - 768

EP - 773

JO - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

JF - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

SN - 0889-5406

IS - 6

ER -