Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Orthodontic mini-implant stability at different insertion depths

Sensitivity of three stability measurement methods

Stabilität orthodontischer Mini-Implantate bei verschiedenen Insertionstiefen

Sensitivität dreier Stabilitätsmessmethoden

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this work was to evaluate the influence of insertion depth on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Sensitivity of three different methods to measure implant stability based on differences in insertion depth were determined.

Methods

A total of 82 mini-implants (2 × 9 mm) were inserted into pelvic bone of Swabian Hall pigs. Each implant was inserted stepwise to depths of 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 mm. At each of these depths, three different methods were used to measure implant stability, including maximum insertion torque (MIT), resonance frequency analysis (RFA), and Periotest®. Differences between the recorded values were statistically analyzed and the methods tested for correlations.

Results

Almost linear changes from each insertion depth were measured with the values of RFA [implant stability quotient (ISQ) values range from 1–100], which increased from 6.95 ± 2.85 ISQ at 4 mm to 34.63 ± 5.51 ISQ at 8 mm, and with those of Periotest® [periotest values (PTV) range from −8 to 50], which decreased from 13.24 ± 4.03 PTV to −2.89 ± 1.87 PTV. Both methods were found to record highly significant (p < 0.0001) changes for each additional millimeter of insertion depth. The MIT increased significantly (p < 0.0001) from 153.67 ± 69.32 Nmm to 261 ± 103.73 Nmm between 4 and 5 mm of insertion depth but no further significant changes were observed as the implants were driven deeper. The RFA and Periotest® values were highly correlated (r = −0.907).

Conclusions

Mini-implant stability varies significantly with insertion depth. The RFA and the Periotest® yielded a linear relationship between stability and insertion depth. MIT does not appear to be an adequate method to determine implant stability based on insertion depth.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

Ziel der Arbeit war es, den Einfluss der Insertionstiefe auf die Stabilität orthodontischer Mini-Implantate zu untersuchen und die Sensitivität verschiedener Stabilitätsmessmethoden in Hinblick auf den Parameter Insertionstiefe zu ermitteln.

Methoden

Insgesamt 82 Mini-Implantate (2 × 9 mm) wurden in den Beckenknochen vom Landschwein inseriert. Bei Insertionstiefen (ID) von 4, 5, 6, 7 und 8 mm wurden jeweils das maximale Eindrehmoment (MIT) gemessen sowie der Periotest® und die Resonanzfrequenzanalyse (RFA) durchgeführt. Die Ergebnisse für die verschiedenen ID wurden statistisch auf signifikante Unterschiede untersucht und die Messmethoden hinsichtlich ihrer Korrelation zueinander überprüft.

Ergebnisse

Die Werte für RFA stiegen mit zunehmender ID nahezu linear an [6,95 ± 2,85 ISQ (“implant stability quotient”) bei ID 4 mm auf 34,63 ± 5,51 ISQ bei ID 8 mm) und fielen für den Periotest® fast linear ab [13,24 ± 4,03 PTV (“periotest values”) auf −2,89 ± 1,87 PTV]. Die Änderungen waren für RFA und Periotest® bei jedem Millimeterschritt der Insertion hoch signifikant (p < 0,0001). Die MIT-Werte stiegen von 4 auf 5 mm ID an (153,67 ± 69,32 auf 261 ± 103,73 Nmm, p < 0,0001) und änderten sich von da an nicht mehr signifikant. RFA und Periotest® zeigten eine hohe Korrelation (r = −0,907).

Schlussfolgerung

Die ID hat einen signifikanten Einfluss auf die Stabilität der Mini-Implantate; der Zusammenhang scheint linearer Natur zu sein. Im Gegensatz zum MIT sind die RFA und der Periotest® dazu geeignet, die Stabilität in Bezug auf den Parameter der Insertionstiefe zu ermitteln.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Brägger U, Hugel-Pisoni C, Burgin W et al (1996) Correlations between radiographic, clinical and mobility parameters after loading of oral implants with fixed partial dentures. A 2-year longitudinal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 7(3):230–239

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Buchter A, Kleinheinz J, Wiesmann HP et al (2004) Peri-implant bone formation around cylindrical and conical implant systems. Mund Kiefer Gesichtschir 8(5):282–288

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Buchter A, Kleinheinz J, Wiesmann HP et al (2005) Interface reaction at dental implants inserted in condensed bone. Clin Oral Implants Res 16(5):509–517

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Buchter A, Kleinheinz J, Wiesmann HP et al (2005) Biological and biomechanical evaluation of bone remodelling and implant stability after using an osteotome technique. Clin Oral Implants Res 16(1):1–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Buchter A, Wiechmann D, Koerdt S et al (2005) Load-related implant reaction of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Clin Oral Implants Res 16(4):473–479

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Buchter A, Wiechmann D, Gaertner C et al (2006) Load-related bone modelling at the interface of orthodontic micro-implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(6):714–722

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chatzigianni A, Keilig L, Reimann S et al (2011) Effect of mini-implant length and diameter on primary stability under loading with two force levels. Eur J Orthod 33(4):381–387

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grandi T, Guazzi P, Samarani R et al (2013) Clinical outcome and bone healing of implants placed with high insertion torque: 12-month results from a multicenter controlled cohort study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 42(4):516–520

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Javed F, Almas K, Crespi R et al (2011) Implant surface morphology and primary stability: is there a connection? Implant Dent 20(1):40–46

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lachmann S, Jager B, Axmann D et al (2006) Resonance frequency analysis and damping capacity assessment. Part I: an in vitro study on measurement reliability and a method of comparison in the determination of primary dental implant stability. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(1):75–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lachmann S, Laval JY, Jager B et al (2006) Resonance frequency analysis and damping capacity assessment. Part 2: peri-implant bone loss follow-up. An in vitro study with the Periotest and Osstell instruments. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(1):80–84

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lukas D, Schulte W (1990) Periotest–a dynamic procedure for the diagnosis of the human periodontium. Clin Phys Physiol Meas 11(1):65–75

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Meredith N, Alleyne D, Cawley P (1996) Quantitative determination of the stability of the implant-tissue interface using resonance frequency analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 7(3):261–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Panayotidis A et al (2012) Measurement of mini-implant stability using resonance frequency analysis. Angle Orthod 83(2):230–238

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nienkemper M, Pauls A, Ludwig B et al (2013) Stability of paramedian inserted palatal mini-implants at the initial healing period: a controlled clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res. 26(8):870–875

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Pauls A et al (2013) Mini-implant stability at the initial healing period. Angle Orthod. Epub ahead of print

  17. Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Pauls A et al (2013) Impact of mini-implant length on stability at the initial healing period: a controlled clinical study. Head Face Med 20(9):30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Noguerol B, Munoz R, Mesa F et al (2006) Early implant failure. Prognostic capacity of Periotest: retrospective study of a large sample. Clin Oral Implants Res 17(4):459–464

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pan CY, Chou ST, Tseng YC et al (2012) Influence of different implant materials on the primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 28(12):673–678

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Pithon MM, Figueiredo DS, Oliveira DD (2013) Mechanical evaluation of orthodontic mini-implants of different lengths. J Oral Maxillofac Surg Off J Am Assoc Oral Maxillofac Surg 71(3):479–486

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schwarz F, Sager M, Kadelka I et al (2010) Influence of titanium implant surface characteristics on bone regeneration in dehiscence-type defects: an experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol 37(5):466–473

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schwarz F, Sahm N, Iglhaut G et al (2011) Impact of the method of surface debridement and decontamination on the clinical outcome following combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: a randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 38(3):276–284

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Su YY (2009) Primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants: analysis of biomechanical properties and clinical relevance. Doctoral thesis, Department of Orthodotnics Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf

  24. Wilmes B, Rademacher C, Olthoff G et al (2006) Parameters affecting primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. J Orofac Orthop 67(3):162–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilmes B, Su YY, Drescher D (2008) Insertion angle impact on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Angle Orthod 78(6):1065–1070

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilmes B, Drescher D (2009) Impact of insertion depth and predrilling diameter on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Angle Orthod 79(4):609–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Heinrich-Heine University, Moorenstrasse 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    Manuel Nienkemper (PD Dr.), Natascha Santel, Ralf Hönscheid & Dieter Drescher

Authors
  1. Manuel Nienkemper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Natascha Santel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ralf Hönscheid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Dieter Drescher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manuel Nienkemper.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

M. Nienkemper, N. Santel, R. Hönscheid, and D. Drescher state that there are no conflicts of interest.

The accompanying manuscript does not include studies on humans or living animals.

Additional information

PD Dr. Manuel Nienkemper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nienkemper, M., Santel, N., Hönscheid, R. et al. Orthodontic mini-implant stability at different insertion depths. J Orofac Orthop 77, 296–303 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0036-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-016-0036-2

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation