Display options
Cite
Choi HW, Park YS, Chung SH, et al. Comparison of mechanical and biological properties of zirconia and titanium alloy orthodontic micro-implants. Korean J Orthod. 2017;47(4):229-237doi: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.4.229.
Choi, H. W., Park, Y. S., Chung, S. H., Jung, M. H., Moon, W., & Rhee, S. H. (2017). Comparison of mechanical and biological properties of zirconia and titanium alloy orthodontic micro-implants. Korean journal of orthodontics, 47(4), 229-237. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.4.229
Choi, Hae Won, et al. "Comparison of mechanical and biological properties of zirconia and titanium alloy orthodontic micro-implants." Korean journal of orthodontics vol. 47,4 (2017): 229-237. doi: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2017.47.4.229
Choi HW, Park YS, Chung SH, Jung MH, Moon W, Rhee SH. Comparison of mechanical and biological properties of zirconia and titanium alloy orthodontic micro-implants. Korean J Orthod. 2017 Jul;47(4):229-237. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.4.229. Epub 2017 May 26. PMID: 28670564; PMCID: PMC5466905.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Korean J Orthod. 2017 Jul;47(4):229-237. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.4.229. Epub 2017 May 26.

Comparison of mechanical and biological properties of zirconia and titanium alloy orthodontic micro-implants.

Korean journal of orthodontics

Hae Won Choi, Young Seok Park, Shin Hye Chung, Min Ho Jung, Won Moon, Sang Hoon Rhee

Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, The Institute of Oral Health Science, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
  2. Department of Oral Anatomy, Dental Research Institute and School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
  3. Department of Dental Biomaterials Science, Dental Research Institute and School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
  4. Department of Orthodontics, Dental Research Institute and School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
  5. Private Practice, Seoul, Korea.
  6. Section of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Center for Health Science, University of California, Los Angeles, USA.

PMID: 28670564 PMCID: PMC5466905 DOI: 10.4041/kjod.2017.47.4.229

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the initial stability as insertion and removal torque and the clinical applicability of novel orthodontic zirconia micro-implants made using a powder injection molding (PIM) technique with those parameters in conventional titanium micro-implants.

METHODS: Sixty zirconia and 60 titanium micro-implants of similar design (diameter, 1.6 mm; length, 8.0 mm) were inserted perpendicularly in solid polyurethane foam with varying densities of 20 pounds per cubic foot (pcf), 30 pcf, and 40 pcf. Primary stability was measured as maximum insertion torque (MIT) and maximum removal torque (MRT). To investigate clinical applicability, compressive and tensile forces were recorded at 0.01, 0.02, and 0.03 mm displacement of the implants at angles of 0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, and 40°. The biocompatibility of zirconia micro-implants was assessed via an experimental animal study.

RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between zirconia micro-implants and titanium alloy implants with regard to MIT, MRT, or the amount of movement in the angulated lateral displacement test. As angulation increased, the mean compressive and tensile forces required to displace both types of micro-implants increased substantially at all distances. The average bone-to-implant contact ratio of prototype zirconia micro-implants was 56.88 ± 6.72%.

CONCLUSIONS: Zirconia micro-implants showed initial stability and clinical applicability for diverse orthodontic treatments comparable to that of titanium micro-implants under compressive and tensile forces.

Keywords: Mechanical stability; Micro-implant; Temporary anchorage devices; Zirconia implant

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article.

References

  1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Aug;128(2):190-4 - PubMed
  2. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2013 May;24(5):586-91 - PubMed
  3. J Orofac Orthop. 2006 May;67(3):162-74 - PubMed
  4. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2012 Apr;14 (2):170-83 - PubMed
  5. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jul;138(1):8.e1-8; discussion 8-9 - PubMed
  6. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009 Nov;20(11):1247-53 - PubMed
  7. Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):1057-64 - PubMed
  8. Angle Orthod. 2011 Jul;81(4):692-9 - PubMed
  9. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2009 Feb;88(2):519-29 - PubMed
  10. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Jan;137(1):91-9 - PubMed
  11. Biomaterials. 2002 Jun;23(12):2459-65 - PubMed
  12. J Orofac Orthop. 2008 Sep;69(5):349-56 - PubMed
  13. Angle Orthod. 2013 Sep;83(5):832-41 - PubMed
  14. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 May;135(5):564.e1-19; discussion 564-5 - PubMed
  15. Quintessence Int. 2010 Jan;41(1):59-66 - PubMed
  16. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Oct;17 Suppl 2:68-81 - PubMed
  17. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008 Aug;19(8):823-35 - PubMed
  18. J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Nov;32(11):838-43 - PubMed
  19. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Nov;142(5):596-614.e5 - PubMed
  20. Angle Orthod. 2009 Sep;79(5):908-14 - PubMed
  21. J Clin Orthod. 1997 Nov;31(11):763-7 - PubMed
  22. J Periodontol. 2004 Feb;75(2):292-6 - PubMed
  23. J Oral Implantol. 2011 Jun;37(3):367-76 - PubMed
  24. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Feb;139(2):e153-63 - PubMed
  25. Eur J Orthod. 2007 Oct;29(5):437-42 - PubMed
  26. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2014 Mar;25(3):337-43 - PubMed
  27. Dent Mater. 2010 Apr;26(4):295-305 - PubMed
  28. J Oral Implantol. 2013 Oct;39(5):583-90 - PubMed
  29. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006 Feb;17(1):109-14 - PubMed
  30. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Feb;137(2):194-9 - PubMed

Publication Types