RESUMO
Objective To investigate the biocompatibility and biodegradability of mini-implants of PLA-based composites in experimental animals by histomorphometry, and to study its clinical application in orthodontic treatment. Methods Six adult male Beagle dogs were randomly divided into 3 groups, a total of 72 mini-implants were implanted to the mandibular. Two Beagle dogs were sacrificed at 2 months、4 months and 6 months after surgery. Animals were intramuscularly injected with tetracycline on 14 and 4 days before sacrifice. Mandibular specimens and the surfaces of mini-implants were examined with Cone beam CT, CBCT and Scanning Electronic Microscopy and SEM respectively. Histopathologocal changes were observed with toluidine blue staining and HE staining. Results The results of CBCT assay showed that the mini-implants were gradually radiopacity with the extension of time. SEM assay showed that the morphology of mini-implants surface was significantly changed;micro-implants degradation occured gradually.New bone formation was observed around the micro-implants within 10 days.Toluidine blue staining showed the formation of new bone around the mini-implants. However, the inflamma-tion around the implants was not observed. Conclusion The biocompatibility of biodegradable mini-implant is good. This mini-implant is biodegradable in vivo and can promote the formation of the surrounding bone tissue.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze tooth movement and arch width changes in maxillary dentition following nonextraction treatment with orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) anchorage in Class II division 1 malocclusions. METHODS: Seventeen adult patients diagnosed with Angle's Class II division 1 malocclusion were treated by nonextraction with OMIs as anchorage for distalization of whole maxillary dentition. Three-dimensional virtual maxillary models were superimposed with the best-fit method at the pretreatment and post-treatment stages. Linear, angular, and arch width variables were measured using Rapidform 2006 software, and analyzed by the paired t-test. RESULTS: All maxillary teeth showed statistically significant movement posteriorly (p 0.05) and the intercanine, interfirst premolar, intersecond premolar, and interfirst molar widths increased significantly (2.2 mm, p < 0.01; 2.2 mm, p < 0.05; 1.9 mm, p < 0.01; 2.0 mm, p < 0.01; respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Nonextraction treatment with OMI anchorage for Class II division 1 malocclusions could retract the whole maxillary dentition to achieve a Class I canine and molar relationship without a change in the vertical position of the teeth; however, the second molars were significantly extruded. Simultaneously, the maxillary arch was shown to be expanded with distal-in rotation of the molars.
Assuntos
Adulto , Humanos , Dente Pré-Molar , Dentição , Má Oclusão , Métodos , Dente Molar , Técnicas de Movimentação Dentária , DenteRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of conventional and orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) anchorage on tooth movement and arch-dimension changes in the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 (CII div.1) patients. METHODS: CII div.1 patients treated with extraction of the maxillary first and mandibular second premolars and sliding mechanics were allotted to conventional anchorage group (CA, n = 12) or OMI anchorage group (OA, n = 12). Pre- and post-treatment three-dimensional virtual maxillary models were superimposed using the best-fit method. Linear, angular, and arch-dimension variables were measured with software program. Mann-Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were performed for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Compared to the CA group, the OMI group showed more backward movement of the maxillary central and lateral incisors and canine (MXCI, MXLI, MXC, respectively; 1.6 mm, p < 0.001; 0.9 mm, p < 0.05; 1.2 mm, p < 0.001); more intrusion of the MXCI and MXC (1.3 mm, 0.5 mm, all p < 0.01); less forward movement of the maxillary second premolar, first, and second molars (MXP2, MXM1, MXM2, respectively; all 1.0 mm, all p < 0.05); less contraction of the MXP2 and MXM1 (0.7 mm, p < 0.05; 0.9 mm, p < 0.001); less mesial-in rotation of the MXM1 and MXM2 (2.6degrees, 2.5degrees, all p < 0.05); and less decrease of the inter-MXP2, MXM1, and MXM2 widths (1.8 mm, 1.5 mm, 2.0 mm, all p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In treatment of CII div.1 malocclusion, OA provided better anchorage and less arch-dimension change in the maxillary posterior teeth than CA during en-masse retraction of the maxillary anterior teeth.