Advertisement

Journal of Maxillofacial and Oral Surgery

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 29–33 | Cite as

A Comparitive Clinical Study Between Self Tapping and Drill Free Screws as a Source of Rigid Orthodontic Anchorage

  • Nishant Gupta
  • S. M. Kotrashetti
  • Vijay Naik
Research Paper

Abstract

Background and Objectives

Self-tapping miniscrews are commonly being used as a temporary anchorage device for orthodontic purpose. A prerequisite for the insertion of these screws is the preparation of a pilot hole, which is time consuming and may result in damage to nerves, tooth root, drill bit breakage and thermal necrosis of bone. On the other hand the design of drill-free screws enables them to be inserted without drilling. The aim of this prospective study was to compare the stability and clinical response of the soft tissue around the self tapping and drill free screws when used for orthodontic anchorage for en mass retraction of maxillary anterior teeth.

Materials and Methods

The study sample consisted of 20 patients requiring retraction of maxillary anterior teeth. The screws were placed in the alveolar bone between maxillary 2nd premolar and 1st molar bilaterally at the junction of attached gingiva and moveable mucosa. Pilot hole was drilled on the side which was selected for insertion of the self tapping screw under copious irrigation, after which it was inserted. Drill free screw was inserted on the contralateral side without predrilling. All screws were immediately loaded with 150–200 gm of retraction force. Patients were recalled for regular follow up for a period of 6 months. If the screws became mobile or showed any signs of inflammation during the course of the study, they were considered to be a failure.

Results

After a period of 6 months an overall success rate of 77.5% was noted. Four self tapping and five drill-free screws failed during the study. There was no statistically significant difference between the two types of screws with respect to success/failure. Mobility was found to be the major cause for the failure.

Conclusion

Both self-tapping and the drill-free screws are effective anchorage units. But the latter have an edge over the conventional self-tapping screws because of decrease in operative time, little bone debris, less thermal damage, lower morbidity, and minimal patient discomfort as predrilling is not required, thus they can be used as a viable alternative. But self-tapping screws are still recommended for areas with high bone density and thick cortical bone.

Keywords

Orthodontic anchorage Mini implants Self-tapping screw Drill-free screws 

References

  1. 1.
    Kim J-W, Ahn S-J, Chang Y-II (2005) Histomorphometric and mechanical analysis of the drill-free screw as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128:190–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hibi H et al (2006) Orthodontic anchorage system using a locking plate and self-drilling screws. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1173–1175PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Heidemann W, Gerlach KL (1999) Clinical applications of drill free screws in maxillofacial surgery. J Cranio Max Surg 27:252–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heidemann W, Gerlach KL, Grobel K-H, Kollner H-G (1998) Drill free screws: a new form of osteosynthesis screws. J Cranio-Max Surg 26:163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heidemann W, Terheyden H, Gerlach KL (2001) Analysis of osseous/metal interface of drill free screws and self-tapping screws. J Cranio Maxfac surg 29:69–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Park H-S et al (2008) Density of the alveolar and basal bones of the maxilla and the mandible. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:30–37PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Park Y-C et al (2007) Applications of orthodontic mini-implants, Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc., Chicago, pp 44–45Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chen Y, Shin H, Kyung H (2008) Biomechanical and histological comparison of self drilling and self tapping orthodontic microimplants in dogs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 133:44–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Favero L, Brollo P, Bressan E (2002) Orthodontic anchorage with specific fixtures: related study analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 122:84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Park H-S, Jeong S-H, Kwon O-W (2006) Factors affecting the clinical success of screw implants used as orthodontic anchorage. Am J orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:18–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chen C-H et al (2006) The use of microimplants in orthodontic anchorage. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1209–1213PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Miano GB, Bednar J, Pagin P, Mura P (2003) The spider screw for skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod 37:90–97Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Liou EJW, Pai BCJ, Lin JCY (2004) Do miniscrews remain stationary under orthodontic forces? Am J orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:42–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons of India 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial SurgeryMahatma Gandhi Dental College and HospitalSitapura, JaipurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, KLEVK Institute of Dental SciencesKLE UniversityBelgaumIndia
  3. 3.Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, KLEVK Institute of Dental SciencesKLE UniversityBelgaumIndia

Personalised recommendations