Department of Orthodontics, Heinrich-Heine-University of Düsseldorf, Moorenstr.5, Building 18.21, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Private Practice, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Prog Orthod. 2020 Feb 17;21(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s40510-020-0305-x.
In dental implantology, the development of stability over time is a well-investigated topic. In case of orthodontic mini-implants, quantitative data for long-term stability is not available yet. This study aims to clinically investigate the long-term stability of mini-implants inserted in the midsagittal suture of the anterior palate. Moreover, the influence of the length of implants was elucidated. The stability of 2 × 9 and 2 × 11 mm mini-implants after orthodontic treatment (9 mm, 2.84 years ± 1.25 years; 11 mm, 3.17 years ± 0.96 years) was assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA). The obtained long-term pieces of data were compared with each other (9 mm vs 11 mm), as well as with the data from the matched early stability groups, to assess the initial and early secondary stability after the insertion from previous clinical trials.
For both lengths, the long-term stability (2 × 9 mm, 25.12 ± 7.11, n = 21; 2 × 11 mm, 24.39 ± 5.82, n = 18) was significantly lower than primary stability (2 × 9 mm, 36.14 ± 6.08, n = 19; 2 × 11 mm, 33.35 ± 3.53, n = 20). The differences within the groups disappeared over the initial healing period: after 4 weeks for the 2 × 9 mm implants and after 2 weeks for the 2 × 11 mm implants. Also, the 2 × 9 mm and 2 × 11 mm implants showed comparable long-term stability values.
The stability of midpalatal mini-implants does not change in the long term after the initial healing period. Moreover, 2 × 9 mm mini-implants seem to be appropriate for orthodontic anchorage, as the stability of 2 × 11 mm implants is not higher. Therefore, owing to lower invasiveness, 2 × 9 mm implants should be preferred.
在牙科植入领域,随时间推移的稳定性发展是一个研究充分的课题。对于正畸微种植体,目前尚无长期稳定性的定量数据。本研究旨在临床研究前 palate 中缝插入的微种植体的长期稳定性。此外,还阐明了种植体长度的影响。通过共振频率分析(RFA)评估正畸治疗后 2×9 和 2×11mm 微种植体的长期稳定性(9mm,2.84 年±1.25 年;11mm,3.17 年±0.96 年)。将获得的长期数据彼此进行比较(9mm 与 11mm),并与之前临床试验中插入后早期稳定性组的数据进行比较,以评估插入后的初始和早期二次稳定性。
对于两种长度,长期稳定性(2×9mm,25.12±7.11,n=21;2×11mm,24.39±5.82,n=18)明显低于初始稳定性(2×9mm,36.14±6.08,n=19;2×11mm,33.35±3.53,n=20)。组内差异在初始愈合期内消失:2×9mm 种植体在 4 周后,2×11mm 种植体在 2 周后。此外,2×9mm 和 2×11mm 种植体具有相似的长期稳定性值。
在前 palate 中缝插入的微种植体在初始愈合期后不会长期改变稳定性。此外,2×9mm 微种植体似乎适合正畸锚固,因为 2×11mm 种植体的稳定性并不更高。因此,由于侵袭性较低,应优先选择 2×9mm 种植体。