Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Histomorphometric and Biomechanical Analyses of Osseointegration of Four Different Orthodontic Mini Implant Surfaces

By Sumit Yadav


Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)Objective: To evaluate the osseointegration potential of four different surfaces of mini-implants .We hypothesized that mini-implants surface roughness alters the intrinsic biomechanical properties of the bone integrated to titanium. Materials and Methods: Mini implants and circular discs were made from alloy Ti6Al4V grade 5. On the basis of surface treatment study was divided into 4 groups: Group 1: Machined: no surface treatment, Group 2: Acid etched: with hydrochloric acid, Group 3: Grit Blasted with alumina and Group 4: Grit blasted +Acid etched. Surface roughness parameters (mean surface roughness: Ra and Quadratic Average roughness: Rq) of the four discs from each group were measured by the optical profilometer. Contact angle measurement of 3 discs from each group was done with a Goniometer. Contact angle of liquids with different hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity were measured. 128 mini implants, differing in surface treatment, were placed into the tibias and femurs of 8 adult male New Zealand white rabbits. Biomechanical properties (Removal torque and hardness) measurements and histomorphometric observations were measured. Results: Ra and Rq of groups were: Machined (1.17±0.11, 2.59±0.09) Acid etched (1.82±0.04, 3.17±0.13), Grit blasted (4.83±0.23, 7.04±0.08), Grit blasted + Acid etched (3.64±0.03, 4.95±0.04) respectively. Group 4 had significantly (p=0.000) lower Ra and Rq than Group 3. The interaction between the groups and liquid was significant. Group 4 had significantly lower contact angle measurements (40.4°, 26.9°), both for blood and NaCl when compared to other three groups (p≤0.01). Group 4 had significantly higher torque than Group 3 (Tibia: 13.67>9.07N-cm; Femur: 18.21>14.12N-cm), Group 4 (Tibia: 13.67>9.78N-cm; Femur: 18.21>12.87N-cm), and machined (Tibia: 13.67>4.08N-cm; Femur: 18.21>6.49N-cm). SEM analysis reveals significantly more bone implant gap in machined implant surfaces than treated implant surfaces. Bone to implant contact had significantly higher values for treated mini implant surface than machined surface. Hardness of the bone near the implant bone interface is 20 to 25% less hard than bone 1mm away from it in both Femur and Tibia. Conclusion: Surface roughness and wettability of mini implants influences their biological response. Grit blasted and acid etched mini implants had lowest contact angle for different liquids tested and highest removal torques

Topics: Osseointegration, Miniscrews, Osseointegration, Dental Implants, Surface Properties, Bone and Bones, Titanium -- pharmacology
Year: 2011
OAI identifier:
Provided by: IUPUIScholarWorks

Suggested articles

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.