COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MONOCORTICAL AND BICORTICAL METHODS OF INSTALLING MINI-IMPLANTS

  • O.Yu. Rivis State Educational Institution “Uzhhorod National University”, Uzhhorod, Ukraine
  • V.S. Melnyk State Educational Institution “Uzhhorod National University”, Uzhhorod, Ukraine
  • M.V. Rivis State Educational Institution “Uzhhorod National University”, Uzhhorod, Ukraine
  • K.V. Zombor State Educational Institution “Uzhhorod National University”, Uzhhorod, Ukraine
Keywords: mini-implant, finite element method, bicortical and monocortical installation.

Abstract

The aim of the study. Carry out a comparative analysis of the support ability of human jaw bone tissue in monocortical and bicortical installation of a mini-implant of own design OMG.

Research methods. In order to study biomechanical characteristics of developed OMG mini-implant and bone tissue capacity during monocortical and bicortical installation, the finite element method (MSE) was used. The scheme and finite element 2-D model of bicortical installation of OMG mini-implant (length 8 mm, diameter 1.8 mm) provided full penetration through one layer of cortical bone equal to 1 mm, the entire cancellous bone and immersion in the second layer of cortical bone by 0, 5 mm. No implantation was immersed in the second cortical layer of bone during monocortical installation. A single force load of 1 N was applied in the horizontal direction parallel to the cortical plate of the bone.

Results of the study. One of the most important factors leading to the success of the use of a mini-implant is its stability in the process of orthodontic treatment. Quite a high level of failure in the monocortical installation of mini-screws has led to the search for better methods to ensure the stability of their use. This was a bicortical method of fixation, based on the placement of the minig screw in the thickness of the two cortical plates of the jaws. Area for such installation of mini-screws can be a site of a palate and alveolar sprouts at installation of miniimplants through all its thickness.

As shown by our data on the use of the finite element method under the force load of the biomechanical system "bone - mini-implant", the stress concentration zone is located in the area of the cortical bone of the jaw.

The results of the calculation of the maximum stresses (σmax, MPa) and the maximum possible displacements (umax, mm) of the mini-implant in the biomechanical system "bone - mini-implant" in monocortical installation were, respectively, 8.27 MPa and 0.300 * 10-8 mm and in bicortical installation 6.00 MPa and 0.201 * 10-8 mm.

The bicortical method of fixing the mini-implant in the jaw bones significantly increases the ability to resist deformation of this type of biomechanical system under force loads of the mini-implant.

In the bicortical method of mini-implant placement, the extreme values of equivalent according to Mises stresses in the upper part of the cortical bone of the jaw are reduced by 27%. This can be explained by a significant increase in the area of contact due to the two layers of the cortical bone of the jaw with the surface of the mini-implant.

Conclusion. The bicortical method of installing mini-implants is a more effective and reliable way to provide skeletal support during orthodontic treatment.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Cho IS, Kim TW, Ahn SJ. Effects of insertion angle and implant thread type on the fracture properties of orthodontic mini-implants during insertion. Angle Orthodontist [Internet]. 2013; 83(4): р.698-704. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23216058/

2. Pan CY, Chou ST, Tseng YC. Influence of different implant materials on the primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Journal of Medical Science. [Internet]. 2012; 28(12): р.673-678. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23217360/

3. Brettin В, Grosland N, Qian F. Bicortical vs monocortical orthodontic skeletal anchorage. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. [Internet]. 2008; 5(134): р.625-635. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18984394/

4. Poorsattar-Bejeh A. Monocortical versus bicortical hard palate anchorage with the same total available cortical thickness: a finite element study. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. [Internet]. 2017; 8(3):р.10-16. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27157504/

5. Holberg С, Winterhalder Р, Rudzki-Janson І. Finite element analysis of mono- and bicortical mini-implant stability. European Journal of Orthodontics. [Internet]. 2014; 36(5): р. 550-556. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23598610/

6. Leo М, Cerroni L, Pasquantonio G. Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in orthodontics: review of the factors that influence the clinical success rate of the mini-implants. Clinical Therapeutics. [Internet]. 2016; 167(3): р. 70-77. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27424513/

7. Gurdan Z, Szalma J. Evaluation of the success and complication rates of self-drilling orthodontic mini-implants. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice. [Internet]. 2018; 21(5): р. 546-552. Available from: https://www.njcponline.com/article.asp?issn=1119-3077;year=2018;volume=21;issue=5;spage=546;epage=552;aulast=Gurdan

8. Lee R, Moon W, Hong С. Effects of monocortical and bicortical mini-implant anchorage on bone-borne palatal expansion using finite element analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. [Internet]. 2017; 151(5): р. 887-897. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28457266/
Published
2021-03-23
How to Cite
Rivis, O., Melnyk, V., Rivis, M., & Zombor, K. (2021). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF MONOCORTICAL AND BICORTICAL METHODS OF INSTALLING MINI-IMPLANTS. Ukrainian Dental Almanac, (1), 38-40. https://doi.org/10.31718/2409-0255.1.2021.06
Section
SURGICAL DENTISTRY