Biomechanical and histological comparison of self-drilling and self ...

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 133, Number 1
surface of microimplants that is directly in contact with
bone matrix and is calculated with software and expressed
as a percentage of the total microimplant surface. In this
study, the mean BIC values in the SDI group were 39.28%
in the maxilla and 47.44% in the mandible. In the STI
group, the mean BIC values were 27.96% and 26.35% in
the maxilla and the mandible, respectively. Because the
BIC values were higher in the SDI group than in the STI
group, this showed that the drilling method had an effect
on bone-to-microimplant contact; this was further confirmed
by PRT values and histologic findings of more
original and new bone in the SDI group.
BIC values of 93.8% in the SDS group and 81% in
the STS group were found after 6 months of observation
in pigs.
19 Heidemann et al
19 demonstrated that the
BIC values in the SDS group were superior to those in
the STS group because of the greater amount of original
bone in the threads of the drill-free screws. Similarly, in
21
the study of Kim and Chang, the mean BIC value
(43.68%) in the drill-free group was higher than in the
drill group (23.41%) in dogs. Obviously, compared
with previous studies, our results indicate that using
SDIs without chemical and biologic modification
caused less damage to bone, and the time of bone
modeling and remodeling was reduced because the
bone debris was transported and deposited on the bone
surface around the implant tip because of the conical
shaft.
19
Compared with the results of Heidemann et al, the
BIC values in our study were lower. This difference
could be an internal response of bone to the implant
31
time and the healing condition. Melsen and Costa
observed BIC values of 10% to 58% after 6 months of
forcing without a healing period for miniscrews. They
found that the BIC ratio increased with implantation
time but was independent of the type of bone and the
magnitude of force. Our results have elucidated the
mechanism behind the behavior of cells on implant
surfaces, and we report an increase in BIC contact by
using different drilling methods.
Because the numbers of dogs and microimplants
were limited, this study might be regarded as a pilot.
However, the results were unequivocal because the
tested microimplants were placed symmetrically. Further
studies with different force magnitudes after a
short healing period are required for more discussion
and definite results.
CONCLUSIONS
By comparing the biomechanical and histologic
properties between SDIs and STIs, without a healing
period, we found high success rates in both groups.
Chen, Shin, and Kyung 49
PIT, PRT, and BIC values were higher in the SDI group
than in the STI group.
We recommend using SDIs in the maxilla and the
thin cortical bone areas of the mandible because there is
less damage and use of instruments. In areas of dense
cortical bone, STIs and SDIs with larger diameters can
be recommended.
REFERENCES
1. Roberts WE, Smith R, Zilberman Y. Osseous adaptation to
continuous loading of rigid endosseous implants. Am J Orthod
1984;68:95-111.
2. Smalley WM, Shapiro PA, Hohi TH, Kokich VG, Bränemark PI.
Osseointergrated titanium implants for maxillofacial protraction
in monkeys. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:285-95.
3. Foley W, Frost D, Tucker M. The effect of repetitive screw hole
use on the retentive strength of pretapped and self-tapped screws.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;48:264-7.
4. Bahr W. Pretapped and self-tapping screw in the human midface.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1990;19:51-3.
5. Park HS, Kwon OW, Sung JH. Micro-implant anchorage for
forced eruption of impacted canines. J Clin Orthod 2004;38:297-
302.
6. Park HS, Kwon TG, Sung JH. Nonextraction treatment with
microscrew implants. Angle Orthod 2004;74:539-49.
7. Park HS, Kwon TG. Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant
anchorage. Angle Orthod 2004;74:703-10.
8. Paik CH, Woo YJ, Kim JS, Park JU. Use of miniscrew for
intermaxillary fixation of lingual-orthodontic surgery patients.
J Clin Orthod 2002;36:132-6.
9. Paik CH, Woo YJ, Boyd RL. Treatment of an adult patient with
vertical maxillary excess using miniscrew fixation. J Clin Orthod
2003;37:423-8.
10. Linder-Aronson S, Nordenram A, Anneroth G. Titanium implant
anchorage in orthodontic treatment: an experimental investigation
in monkeys. Eur J Orthod 1990;12:414-9.
11. Roberts WE, Marshall KJ, Mozsary PG. Rigid endosseous
implant utilized as anchorage to protract molars and close an
atrophic extraction site. Angle Orthod 1990;60:135-52.
12. Majzoub Z, Finotti M, Miotti F, Giardino R, Aldini NN, Cordioli
G. Bone response to orthodontic loading of endosseous implants
in the rabbit calvaria: early continuous distalizing forces. Eur
J Orthod 1999;21:223-30.
13. Odman J, Lekholm U, Jemt T, Bränemark PL, Thilander B.
Osseointergrated implants—a new approach in orthodontic treatment.
Eur J Orthod 1988;10:98-105.
14. Odman J, Lekholm U, Jemt T, Thilander B. Osseointergrated
implants as orthodontic anchorage in the treatment of partially
edentulous adult patients. Eur J Orthod 1994;16:187-201.
15. Roberts WE, Helm FR, Marshall KJ, Gongloff RK. Rigid
endosseous implants for orthodontic and orthopedic anchorage.
Angle Orthod 1989;59:247-56.
16. Wehrbein H, Feife H. Palatal implant anchorage reinforcement
of posterior teeth: a prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1999;116:676-86.
17. Heidemann W, Gerlach KL, Grobel KH, Kollner HG. Drill free
screws: a new form of osteosynthesis screw. J Craniomaxillofac
Surg 1998;26:163-8.
18. Heidemann W, Gerlach KL. Clinical applications of drill free
screws in maxillofacial surgery. J Craniomaxillofac Surg 1999;
27:252-5.