Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of surface roughness on the removal torque and bone-to-implant contact of four different orthodontic mini-implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mini-implants and circular discs were made from alloy Ti6Al4V grade 5. On the basis of surface treatment, the study was divided into four groups-group 1: machined (n = 32), no surface treatment; group 2: acid etched (n = 32), with hydrochloric acid; group 3 (n = 32), grit blasted with alumina; and group 4, grit blasted + acid etched (n = 32). Mean surface roughness (Ra) and quadratic average roughness (Rq) from each group were measured two dimensionally in non-contact mode by the optical profilometer. Contact angle measurement of discs from each group was done with a contact angle goniometer. Contact angle of liquids with different hydrophobicity and hydrophilicity was measured: 1. highly hydrophilic liquid sodium chloride (NaCl), 2. lightly hydrophobic liquid dimethylsulfoxide, 3. distilled water, and 4. human blood. One hundred and twenty-eight miniscrews, differing in surface treatment, were placed into the tibias and femurs of adult male New Zealand white rabbits. Rabbits were euthanized after 8 weeks and removal torque and bone-to-implant contact were measured. RESULTS: Surface roughness of group 3 was significantly greater than other groups (P < 0.05). Group 4 had significantly lower contact angle measurements, both for blood and sodium chloride (NaCl; 40.26 degrees, 27.20 degrees) when compared to other three groups (P ≤ 0.01). Group 4 had significantly higher torque and bone-to-implant contact than group 3 (P = 0.007), group 2 (P = 0.003), and group 1 (P = 0.0002). CONCLUSION: Surface roughness and wettability of mini-implants influence their biological response.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yadav et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: