Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of 2 Prosthetic Mini-implants

Comparison of the Mechanical Properties of 2 Prosthetic Mini-implants
September 2004
Kanie, Takahito PhD*; Nagata, Mutsumi DDS, PhDÇƒÜ; Ban, Seiji PhDÇƒ?
Implant Dentistry: Volume 13(3) September 2004 pp 251-256
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
*Research Associate, Department of Biomaterials Science, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan.
ÇƒÜLecturer, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontology, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan.
Çƒ?Professor, Department of Biomaterials Science, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, Kagoshima, Japan.
Reprint requests and correspondence to: Takahito Kanie, PhD, Department of Biomaterials Science, Field of Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation, Course for Advanced Therapeutics, Kagoshima University Graduate School of Medical and Dental Sciences, 8-35-1 Sakuragaoka, Kagoshima 8908544, Japan, Phone: 81-99-275-6172, Fax: 81-99-275-6178, E-mail: einak@dentb.hal.kagoshima-u.ac.jp
Abstract
Two prosthetic mini-implants (MTI and MDI), which have very similar shapes, are widely used. In this investigation, the mechanical and physical properties of 2 prosthetic mini-implants were investigated. The flexural properties were measured with a universal testing machine. The surface image was observed by SEM with EDX. X-ray analyses were performed. The maximum strength and proportion limit for the different implants differed significantly ( P <0.01); however, elastic modulus did not differ significantly ( P >0.01). Although the surface of the MTI was smooth, the MDI had a rough surface. The elemental analysis detected titanium (Ti) in the MTI, and Ti, aluminum, and vanadium in the MDI. From the x-ray diffraction pattern, the MTI, which is composed of pure titanium, had a narrow, sharp Ti (syn) peak, whereas the corresponding peak for the MDI was small and broad. Although the 2 devices have similar shapes and dimensions, their surfaces and mechanical properties differ greatly. MTI is easy to remove and wrought in clinical use, and MDI is excellent in flexural properties compared with MTI. (Implant Dent 2004;13:251-256)
Generally, 3 to 6 months are needed to establish osseointe-gration of an implant. During the treatment, prosthetic mini-implants can be transitionally applied to prevent overloading the main implants and to improve the quality of life for patients by maintaining masticatory function. Recently, mini-implants have been widely used for various purposes: reinforcement of the dental arch against occlusal force during the healing period of the main fixtures, 1-6 to anchor the removable dentures, 7,8 orthodontic anchorages, 9,10 periodontal therapy, 11,12 and temporary fixation anchorage of the transplanted teeth 13. Although there are some problems, including loosening, 3,11,14 deformations, 15 and fracture of the implants, 3,11,14 there are few reports on the basic mechanical properties of prosthetic mini-implants. This study measured the mechanical and physical properties of 2 prosthetic mini-implants with very similar shapes.
Please visit the Web site to view the report in its entirety.