A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of stainless steel and titanium alloy orthodontic miniscrew implants: a mechanical and histologic analysis. | LitMetric

Comparison of stainless steel and titanium alloy orthodontic miniscrew implants: a mechanical and histologic analysis.

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop

Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics and Oral Facial Genetics, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, Ind. Electronic address:

Published: April 2014

Introduction: The detailed mechanical and histologic properties of stainless steel miniscrew implants used for temporary orthodontic anchorage have not been assessed. Thus, the purpose of this study was to compare them with identically sized titanium alloy miniscrew implants.

Methods: Forty-eight stainless steel and 48 titanium alloy miniscrew implants were inserted into the tibias of 12 rabbits. Insertion torque and primary stability were recorded. One hundred grams of tensile force was applied between half of the implants in each group, resulting in 4 subgroups of 24 specimens each. Fluorochrome labeling was administered at weeks 4 and 5. When the rabbits were euthanized at 6 weeks, stability and removal torque were measured in half (ie, 12 specimens) of each of the 4 subgroups. Microdamage burden and bone-to-implant contact ratio were quantified in the other 12 specimens in each subgroup. Mixed model analysis of variance was used for statistical analysis.

Results: All implants were stable at insertion and after 6 weeks. The only significant difference was the higher (9%) insertion torque for stainless steel. No significant differences were found between stainless steel and titanium alloy miniscrew implants in microdamage burden and bone-to-implant contact regardless of loading status.

Conclusions: Stainless steel and titanium alloy miniscrew implants provide the same mechanical stability and similar histologic responses, suggesting that both are suitable for immediate orthodontic clinical loads.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.12.022DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

stainless steel
24
titanium alloy
20
miniscrew implants
20
steel titanium
16
alloy miniscrew
16
mechanical histologic
8
insertion torque
8
microdamage burden
8
burden bone-to-implant
8
bone-to-implant contact
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!