Department of Orthodontics and Clinical Gnatology, University of Padua, Italy.
Prog Orthod. 2010;11(2):105-17. doi: 10.1016/j.pio.2010.09.005. Epub 2010 Oct 8.
The study analysed twelve anchorage systems based on micro implants in terms of their bio-mechanical properties and appraised their actual clinical effectiveness.
The analysed micro implants had data provided by the manufacturers or extracted from articles published in specialised journals. The parameters taken into account were: material, surface treatment, head type, length, diameter, neck length, filleted self drilling or self tapping surface, applicable orthodontic forces, possibility of immediate loading, and device removal.
Material Grade 5 titanium, titanium alloy (TiAl6V4), surgical steel; surfaces: smooth, sand-blasted and acid etched; head type: bracket, conic with button, round, hexagonal, button with cross cuts, double melted sphere; lengths: between 8.0 to 14 mm; diameters: between 1.2 to 2.0 mms; neck lengths: inferior to 1.5mm and superior to 2.0mm; filleted portion: self tapping and/or self drilling; applicable orthodontic forces: up to 500 g, possibility of immediate loading, device removal, possibility to use in growing patients.
The most widely used material was TiAl6V4; most of the surfaces were smooth; the most commonly used head type was the bracket; the most often produced length was the "short" one (8.0-9.9 mm), the most demanded diameter the "smaller" one (1.2-1.4 mms); six systems out of eleven had micro implants with "extra" and "standard" necks; only 3 systems out of eleven produced "non self drilling"devices; all the micro implants analysed were able to withstand orthodontic forces between 150 g and 350 g; all devices were suitable for "immediate loading"; all micro implants had to be removed; all micro implants could be used in growing patients.
The comparative analysis showed that micro implants could be used as valid anchorage systems, if dental anchorage was insufficient either in qualitative terms (i.e. parodontal problems) or in quantitative terms (i.e. few dental elements remaining), and in all those situations of limited patient compliance.
本研究分析了基于微种植体的 12 种锚固系统的生物力学性能，并评估了它们的实际临床效果。
分析的微种植体的数据由制造商提供或从专业期刊发表的文章中提取。考虑的参数有：材料、表面处理、头部类型、长度、直径、颈部长度、切屑自攻或自攻表面、适用的正畸力、即刻加载的可能性以及器械去除。
材料等级 5 钛、钛合金（TiAl6V4）、外科钢；表面：光滑、喷砂酸蚀；头部类型：托槽、带按钮的锥形、圆形、六角形、带十字切口的按钮、双重熔融球体；长度：8.0 至 14mm；直径：1.2 至 2.0mm；颈部长度：小于 1.5mm 大于 2.0mm；切屑部分：自攻和/或自攻；适用的正畸力：高达 500g，即刻加载的可能性、器械去除、在生长中的患者中使用的可能性。
最广泛使用的材料是 TiAl6V4；大多数表面都是光滑的；最常用的头部类型是托槽；最常生产的长度是“短”（8.0-9.9mm），最需要的直径是“小”（1.2-1.4mm）；11 个系统中有 6 个微种植体具有“额外”和“标准”颈部；只有 3 个系统生产“非自攻”器械；分析的所有微种植体都能承受 150 至 350g 的正畸力；所有器械都适合“即刻加载”；所有微种植体都需要拆除；所有微种植体都可用于生长中的患者。
比较分析表明，微种植体可用作有效的锚固系统，如果牙锚固在质量方面（即牙周问题）或在数量方面（即剩余的牙齿较少）不足，或者在所有患者依从性有限的情况下。
