Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the fracture resistance of six commonly used self-drilling orthodontic mini-implants by comparing their respective fracture torques during insertion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety self-drilling mini-implants from six manufacturers (Aarhus, Dual-Top, OrthoEasy, Tomas-pin, Unitek, and VectorTAS), with diameters ranging from 1.4 to 1.8 mm, were inserted into acrylic blocks using a custom-made insertion device. Insertion torques were measured using a 6-degree-of-freedom load cell fixed to the base of the acrylic blocks, and peak torques experienced at the time of fracture for each of the mini-implants were recorded. One-way analysis of variance (α = .05) was used to compare the fracture torques among the six different groups. RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed significant differences (P < .05) in the peak fracture torques among mini-implant groups. Mean fracture torques ranked as follows: Unitek (72 Ncm) > Tomas-pin (36 Ncm) > Dual-Top (32 Ncm) ≈ VectorTAS (31 Ncm) > OrthoEasy (28 Ncm) > Aarhus (25 Ncm), with significant differences found between all manufacturers, except for Dual-Top and VectorTAS. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-implants tested showed a wide range of torque at fracture depending on the manufacturer, with only a weak correlation between mini-implant diameter and fracture resistance. This torque should be considered at the time of mini-implant insertion to minimize the risk of implant fracture, especially in areas of high-density bone without predrilling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Smith et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: