The effect of sandblasting and acid etching on survival rate of orthodontic miniscrews: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial.
Orthodontic mini screws
Sandblasting
Surface roughening
Survival rate
Journal
Progress in orthodontics
ISSN: 2196-1042
Titre abrégé: Prog Orthod
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100936353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 Jan 2021
07 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
05
11
2020
accepted:
21
12
2020
entrez:
7
1
2021
pubmed:
8
1
2021
medline:
9
1
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of surface roughening and acid etching on clinical success rate and removal and insertion torque of orthodontic miniscrews. Sixty-two orthodontic miniscrews (Jail Medical Corporation, Seoul, Korea) with the same design and dimensions (10-mm length, 2-mm diameter) are divided into two (sandblasted and acid-etched versus control) groups. The sample of the study was 31 patients whose miniscrews were needed for en masse retraction of the upper six anterior teeth. In this split-mouth study, the miniscrews were placed in the attached gingiva between the second premolar and the first molar. The side (left or right) was selected randomly. The miniscrews were loaded 6 weeks after insertion, and the patients were followed up after 3, 6, 10, 14, and 18 weeks and then for 4 weeks interval. Chi-square, correlation, and independent t tests were done using SPSS ver24 to interpret the data. The survival rate was 90.3% and 83.9% for the sandblasted and acid-etched versus the control group, respectively. The difference in survival rate was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Removal torque was higher for the sandblasted group (p < 0.05). Younger patients showed less survival rate (p < 0.05) in both groups. Insertion side, namely, left or right, was not statistically significant. Although sandblasting increased removal torque, it did not influence the survival rate of orthodontic miniscrews significantly.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of surface roughening and acid etching on clinical success rate and removal and insertion torque of orthodontic miniscrews.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
Sixty-two orthodontic miniscrews (Jail Medical Corporation, Seoul, Korea) with the same design and dimensions (10-mm length, 2-mm diameter) are divided into two (sandblasted and acid-etched versus control) groups. The sample of the study was 31 patients whose miniscrews were needed for en masse retraction of the upper six anterior teeth. In this split-mouth study, the miniscrews were placed in the attached gingiva between the second premolar and the first molar. The side (left or right) was selected randomly. The miniscrews were loaded 6 weeks after insertion, and the patients were followed up after 3, 6, 10, 14, and 18 weeks and then for 4 weeks interval. Chi-square, correlation, and independent t tests were done using SPSS ver24 to interpret the data.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The survival rate was 90.3% and 83.9% for the sandblasted and acid-etched versus the control group, respectively. The difference in survival rate was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). Removal torque was higher for the sandblasted group (p < 0.05). Younger patients showed less survival rate (p < 0.05) in both groups. Insertion side, namely, left or right, was not statistically significant.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although sandblasting increased removal torque, it did not influence the survival rate of orthodontic miniscrews significantly.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33409700
doi: 10.1186/s40510-020-00347-z
pii: 10.1186/s40510-020-00347-z
pmc: PMC7788110
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2Références
Eur J Orthod. 2007 Oct;29(5):437-42
pubmed: 17974533
Angle Orthod. 2008 Jan;78(1):107-13
pubmed: 18193961
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Feb;17(1):109-14
pubmed: 16441792
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Dec;134(6):803-10
pubmed: 19061808
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Oct;124(4):373-8
pubmed: 14560266
Arch Oral Biol. 2013 Jul;58(7):806-12
pubmed: 23337099
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Feb;125(2):139-47
pubmed: 14765051
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Feb;137(2):194-9
pubmed: 20152674
Refuat Hapeh Vehashinayim (1993). 2003 Jul;20(3):8-19, 98
pubmed: 14515625
Angle Orthod. 2019 May;89(3):411-417
pubmed: 30516419
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2005 Aug;16(4):480-5
pubmed: 16117774
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 May;135(5):564.e1-19; discussion 564-5
pubmed: 19409331
Angle Orthod. 2009 Sep;79(5):908-14
pubmed: 19705930
Angle Orthod. 2012 Jul;82(4):625-31
pubmed: 22077190
Angle Orthod. 2008 Jan;78(1):101-6
pubmed: 18193973
Clin Oral Implants Res. 1995 Mar;6(1):24-30
pubmed: 7669864
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Jul;126(1):42-7
pubmed: 15224057
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jul;130(1):18-25
pubmed: 16849067
Angle Orthod. 2010 Jan;80(1):123-9
pubmed: 19852651
Int J Oral Surg. 1981 Dec;10(6):387-416
pubmed: 6809663
Eur J Orthod. 2015 Dec;37(6):627-35
pubmed: 25681126
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 May;119(5):489-97
pubmed: 11343020
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007 Jul 18;(3):CD005098
pubmed: 17636785
Korean J Orthod. 2016 Nov;46(6):386-394
pubmed: 27896213
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2010 Mar;21(3):308-15
pubmed: 20074244
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2007 Aug;36(8):695-9
pubmed: 17521887
Adv Dent Res. 1999 Jun;13:35-7
pubmed: 11276744
J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001 Apr;29(2):100-5
pubmed: 11465432
Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):1057-64
pubmed: 18947283