Survival rate and stability of surface-treated and non-surface-treated orthodontic mini-implants: a randomized clinical trial

ABSTRACT Objectives: This clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the stability and failure rate of surface-treated orthodontic mini-implants and determine whether they differ from those of non-surface-treated orthodontic mini-implants. Trial Design: Randomized clinical trial with a split-mouth study design. Setting: Department of Orthodontics, SRM Dental College, Chennai. Participants: Patients who required orthodontic mini-implants for anterior retraction in both arches. Methods: Self-drilling, tapered, titanium orthodontic mini-implants with and without surface treatment were placed in each patient following a split-mouth design. The maximum insertion and removal torques were measured for each implant using a digital torque driver. The failure rates were calculated for each type of mini-implant. Results: The mean maximum insertion torque was 17.9 ± 5.6 Ncm for surface-treated mini-implants and 16.4 ± 9.0 Ncm for non-surface-treated mini-implants. The mean maximum removal torque was 8.1 ± 2.9 Ncm for surface-treated mini-implants and 3.3 ± 1.9 Ncm for non-surface-treated mini-implants. Among the failed implants, 71.4% were non-surface-treated mini-implants and 28.6% were surface-treated mini-implants. Conclusion: The insertion torque and failure rate did not differ significantly between the groups, whereas the removal torque was significantly higher in the surface-treated group. Thus, surface treatment using sandblasting and acid etching may improve the secondary stability of self-drilling orthodontic mini-implants. Trial registration: The trial was registered in the Clinical Trials Registry, India (ICMR NIMS). Registration number: CTRI/2019/10/021718

RESUMO Objetivos: Este ensaio clínico foi conduzido para avaliar a estabilidade e a taxa de falha de mini-implantes ortodônticos com superfície tratada, e determinar se elas diferem das dos mini-implantes ortodônticos sem superfície tratada. Desenho do estudo: Ensaio clínico randomizado com desenho de boca dividida. Instituição: Department of Orthodontics, SRM Dental College, Chennai/India. Participantes: Pacientes que necessitavam de mini-implantes ortodônticos para retração anterior em ambas as arcadas. Métodos: Mini-implantes ortodônticos autoperfurantes, cônicos, de titânio com ou sem tratamento de superfície, foram colocados em cada paciente, seguindo um desenho de boca dividida. Os torques máximos de inserção e de remoção foram medidos para cada mini-implante, usando um torquímetro digital. As taxas de falha foram calculadas para cada tipo de mini-implante. Resultados: O valor médio do torque máximo de inserção foi de 17,9 ± 5,6 Ncm para mini-implantes com superfície tratada e 16,4 ± 9,0 Ncm para mini-implantes sem superfície tratada. O valor médio do torque máximo de remoção foi de 8,1 ± 2,9 Ncm para mini-implantes com superfície tratada e 3,3 ± 1,9 Ncm para mini-implantes sem superfície tratada. Entre os implantes que falharam, 71,4% eram mini-implantes sem superfície tratada e 28,6% eram mini-implantes com superfície tratada. Conclusão: O torque de inserção e a taxa de falha não diferiram significativamente entre os grupos; porém, o torque de remoção foi significativamente maior no grupo com superfície tratada. Assim, o tratamento de superfície com jateamento e condicionamento ácido pode melhorar a estabilidade secundária dos mini-implantes ortodônticos autoperfurantes. Registro do estudo: Esse estudo foi registrado no Clinical Trials Registry, Índia (ICMR NIMS). Número de registro: CTRI/2019/10/021718

Is Elective Implant Removal after Fracture Healing Beneficial? – A Prospective Cohort Study

@#Introduction: Elective implant removal following healed extremity fractures remains controversial. This study aimed to evaluate the reasons and outcomes of implant removal after uneventful healing of limb fractures. Materials and methods: This is a prospective single-centre observational cohort study. Patients who sustained upper or lower extremity fractures that were fixed and healed uneventfully were included in the study when they elected to remove the implants. Patients were followed for six months post-operatively. Outcomes were assessed with patient satisfaction, symptoms resolution, and complications. Results: A total of 43 patients were recruited from October 2016 to March 2019. Thirty-six patients (37 implants) were symptomatic. Pain and prominence were the most common complaints, present in 59.5% and 33.3% of patients, respectively. Cold weather pain was also not uncommon (19.0%). Pain improved in 91.3% of the patients who complained of pain. The 94.6% symptomatic patients had at least partial resolution of pre-operative symptoms. All the patients who completed follow-up were satisfied with the procedure. In two patients, there were broken and retained screws intra-operatively. Post-operative complication rate was 23.8%, although no major complications occurred. Conclusions: Implant removal after uneventful healing of extremity fractures is a safe procedure that conferred a predictable relief of symptoms and satisfactory outcomes in most.

Abordaje quirúrgico y protésico para resolución de defecto Clase IV C de Zucchelli en el maxilar anterior. Reporte de Caso / Surgical and prosthetic approach for resolution of Zucchelli Class IV C defect in the anterior maxilla. Case report

RESUMEN: Se describe el caso clínico de una paciente de 37 años, sexo femenino, sana, con sonrisa gingival, la cual presentaba problemas estéticos en relación, a un implante en la 1.1, instalado hace 7 años, el implante no presentaba una correcta posición tridimensional, correspondiendo a una Clase IVc de Zucchelli. El presente reporte clínico describe los pasos quirúrgicos y protésicos para resolver la estética del maxilar anterior pasando de un PES/WES inicial de 8 a un valor final de 16.

ABSTRACT: We describe the clinical case of a 37-year-old female patient, healthy, with a gingival smile, who had aesthetic problems in relation to an implant in 1.1, installed 7 years ago. The implant did not present a correct three-dimensional position, corresponding to a Class IVc according to Zucchelli. This clinical report describes the surgical and prosthetic steps to resolve the aesthetics of the anterior maxilla, going from an initial PES / WES of 8 to a final value of 16.

Direct reduction and repair of spondylolysis with grade 1 slip using the smiley face rod: a case report / Journal of Rural Medicine

Objective: Lumbar spondylolysis, caused by stress fracture of the pars interarticularis may lead to a bony defect or spondylolisthesis. In adolescents, its surgical treatment employs the smiley face rod method for direct reduction of pseudoarthrotic spondylolysis and spondylolisthesis. Clinical outcomes of this treatment have been occasionally described; however, implant removal has not been discussed previously. We present a patient with lumbar spondylolysis with grade 1 slip at the 5th lumbar vertebra (L5) per the Meyerding classification.Patient: A 14-year-old boy presented with chronic severe lower back pain. Since conservative therapy did not resolve pain or enable resuming sports activities, the smiley face rod repair was performed 7 months after the initial treatment.Result: Anterior slippage of the L5 was surgically reduced. The patient wore a brace for 3 months postoperatively, and partial bone fusion was noted 6 months postoperatively. He resumed his sports activity 8 months postoperatively, and absolute bone fusion was confirmed 18 months postoperatively. Implant removal was performed 3 years postoperatively. Grade 1 slip was corrected with absolute bone fusion, and long-term follow-up revealed good results in terms of healing and rehabilitation.Conclusion: Smiley face rod method that allows for implant removal after bone fusion is suitable for adolescents.

Comparison of Percutaneous versus Open Pedicle Screw Fixation for Treating Unstable Thoracolumbar Fractures

PURPOSE: This study compared the clinical and radiological results between two groups of patients with percutaneous fixation or conventional fixation after hardware removal.MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study analyzed 68 patients (43 open fixation and 43 percutaneous screw fixation [PSF] 25) who had undergone fixation for unstable thoracolumbar fractures. The radiologic results were obtained using the lateral radiographs taken before and after the fixation and at the time of hardware removal. The clinical results included the time of operation, blood loss, time to ambulation, duration of the hospital stay and the visual analogue scale.RESULTS: The percutaneous pedicle screw fixation (PPSF) group showed better results than did the conventional posterior fixation (CPF) group (p<0.05) in regard to the perioperative data such as operation time, blood loss, and duration of the hospital stay. There were no significant differences in wedge angle, local kyphotic angle, and the ΔKyphotic angle on the postoperative plane radiographs between the two groups (p>0.05). There were no significant differences in the wedge angle and local kyphotic angle after implant removal (p>0.05) between the two groups as well. However, there were significant differences in the segmental montion angle (p<0.001), and the PPSF group showed a larger segmental motion angle than did the CPF group (CPF 1.7°±1.2° vs PPSF 5.9°±3.2°, respectively).CONCLUSION: For the treatment of unstable thoracolumbar fractures, the PPSF technique could achieve better clinical results and an improved segmental motion angle after implant removal within a year than that of the conventional fixation method.

Full mouth rehabilitation in a patient with peri-implantitis: A case report / 대한치과보철학회지

Peri-implantitis appears in almost 20% of patients who received implant treatment, and increase in its number is inevitable as time goes by. Although it can be treated by both non-surgical and surgical procedures, in cases which include severe bone loss, explantation and rehabilitation may be necessary. Careful treatment planning and considerations to prevent recurrent peri-implantitis should be taken into account. In the following case presented, a patient with chronic periodontitis and peri-implantitis was successfully rehabilitated after removal of several implants. Extraction and explantation of multiple teeth and implants were followed by full mouth reconstruction with fixed implant prostheses on the mandible and implant retained overdenture on the maxilla. Surgical and prosthetic measures to prevent recurrent peri-implantitis were taken into consideration.

Treatment of Surgical Site Infection in Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective observational and case control study. PURPOSE: To identify appropriate treatment options according to the types of surgical site infections (SSI) in instrumented posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF). OVERVIEW OF LITERATURE: There has been no agreement or consensus with regard to this matter. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive SSIs were included and followed for more than one year. The elapsed time to diagnosis (ETD) according to the type of SSI was analyzed. The treatment options for each type and consequent clinical results were reviewed. The risk factors of removing the implants were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 6/32 (19%) superficial incisional, 6/32 (19%) deep incisional, and 20/32 (62%) organ/space infection cases (SII, DII, and O/SI, respectively) (p=0.002). ETD was 8.5+/-2.3 days in SII, 8.7+/-2.3 days in DII, and 164.5+/-131.1 days in O/SI (p=0.013). All cases of SII and DII retained implants and were treated by repeated irrigation and secondary closure. Among O/SIs, 10/20 were treated conservatively. Nine out of ten underwent posterior one stage simultaneous revision (POSSR) and in one case, the cage was removed anteriorly. Those who had ETDs longer than 3 months showed a significant risk of implant removal (p=0.008, odds ratio [OR]=40.3). The Oswestry disability index (ODI) improved from 47.3% to 33.8% in SII, from 55.0% to 32.3% in DII, and from 53.4% to 42.1% in O/SI (p=0.002). There was no difference among the three groups (p=0.106); however, there was a partial correlation between ETD and final ODI (r=0.382, p=0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Latent O/SI was the most common type of SSI in PLIF. In cases of SII and DII, early aggressive wound management and secondary closure was effective and implant removal was not necessary. In some cases of O/SI, implant removal was unavoidable. However, implant removal could be averted by an earlier diagnosis. POSSR was feasible and safe. Functional outcomes were improved; however, disability increased as ETD increased.

Treatment of Periprosthetic Tuberculous Infection of Total Hip Arthroplasty with Long Term Medication without Implant Removal / 대한고관절학회지

Periprosthetic joint infection is one of the most dreaded complications of replacement arthroplasty and the incidence of periprosthetic tuberculous infections is increasing. This report presents a case of extensive periprosthetic tuberculous infections of primary total hip arthroplasty which was treated with debridement and long periods of antituberculous medication without implant removal. The patient completed 18 months of 4 drug antituberculous chemotherapy and the plain radiograph on the last review showed new bony consolidation around the prosthesis without loosening or signs of reactivation.

Efficiency of Implant Removal for Treatment of the Thoraco-lumbar Unstable Fractures: Multi Segments Fixation, Single Segment Fusion

STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and usefulness of implant removal based on fusion by radiological change analyses and non-fused segment motion angle after open reduction, multi-segment fixation, and single segment fusion. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW: There have been reports that discuss possible fracture of fixator, loss of reduction, or failure of fixation in certain cases of single segment fixation consistent with thoracolumbar fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analyzed 83 patients who had undergone treatment by fixation of the top 2 segments and the bottom segment. The posterolateral fusions were performed for the top segment for thoracolumbar fractures. The mean follow-up was 21.3 months. Wedge and local kyphotic angles, anterior, and posterior heights of the vertebral body were measured on plain radiograph. The range of motion of each segment was recorded by flexion-extension lateral radiographs at 6 month after the removal of implants. RESULTS: Radiologic assessments performed on 83 patients demonstrated preoperative mean wedge angle, kyphotic angle, mean anterior body height of 20.1degrees, 18.5degrees and 62.0%, respectively, and, postoperatively, these were corrected by 9.0degrees, 9.3degrees and 24.6%, respectively. In the 44 cases that had the implants removed, the correction losses were 0.4degrees(P=0.258) and 3.7degrees(P=0.000), 0.5%(P=0.756), and at the last follow-up, compared to measurements prior to the removal. There was no statistical significance in wedge angle or anterior body height. The range of motion measured on the non-fused segment was 3.9degrees on average at 6-months after the hardware removal. CONCLUSIONS: The multi-segments fixation and single-segment fusion for the thoracolumbar fracture can preserve correction and the motion of non-fusion segment. Although the implant removal after union can sustain motion, further studies regarding degenerative change of the non-fused segment are necessary.

Efficacy of Spinal Implant Removal After Thoracolumbar Junction Fusion

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of spinal implant removal and to determine the possible mechanisms of pain relief. METHODS: Fourteen patients with an average of 42 years (from 22 to 67 years) were retrospectively evaluated. All patients had posterior spinal instrumentation and fusion, who later developed recurrent back pain or persistent back pain despite a solid fusion mass. Patients' clinical charts, operative notes, and preoperative x-rays were evaluated. Relief of pain was evaluated by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain change after implant removal. Clinical outcome using VAS and modified MacNab's criteria was assessed on before implant removal, 1 month after implant removal and at the last clinical follow-up. Radiological analysis of sagittal alignment was also assessed. RESULTS: Average follow-up period was 18 months (from 12 to 25 months). There were 4 patients who had persistent back pain at the surgical site and 10 patients who had recurrent back pain. The median time after the first fusion operation and the recurrence of pain was 6.5 months (from 3 to 13 months). All patients except one had palpation pain at operative site. The mean blood loss was less than 100ml and there were no major complications. The mean pain score before screw removal and at final follow up was 6.4 and 2.9, respectively (p<0.005). Thirteen of the 14 patients were graded as excellent and good according to modified MacNab's criteria. Overall 5.9 degrees of sagittal correction loss was observed at final follow up, but was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: For the patients with persistent or recurrent back pain after spinal instrumentation, removal of the spinal implant may be safe and an efficient procedure for carefully selected patients who have palpation pain and are unresponsive to conservative treatment.