Is there a difference between the primary stability of anodized and non-anodized mini-screws subjected to repeated cycles of autoclave sterilization?
Abstract
Objective: To determine if autoclave sterilization has any deleterious effects on the clinical stability of anodized versus non-anodized mini-screws.
Materials and Methods: Thirty anodized and thirty non-anodized Aarhus System mini-screws (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI) were utilized. Each group was divided into three test groups. In each group, mini-screws that were sterilized once using a steam autoclave (Statim 5000, SciCan USA, Canonsburg, Pa) served as the control group (n=10). The other two test groups involved mini-screws that were subjected to a repeated cycles of sterilization for five (n=10) and ten (n=10) times. All sixty mini-screws were inserted at a 90° angle into custom-designed synthetic blocks that simulated the average mandible of a healthy adult. The maximum insertion torque and the lateral displacement at 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, and 1 mm were recorded for each sample and subjected to statistical testing. A two-way ANOVA, and a three-way mixed ANOVA were used for statistical analyses.
Results: Maximum insertion torque values displayed significant differences between the anodized and non-anodized groups (p<0.001) as well as the sterilization cycles (p<0.001). No significant group and cycle interaction was observed. No significant differences were found between the groups and sterilization cycles in the evaluation of the lateral displacement test. However, there was a significant group/cycle/displacement interaction (p<0.001).
Conclusion: Surface treatment of mini-screws with anodization produced differences when compared to standard surface mini-screws following autoclave sterilization. The differences between the two types of mini-screws did not indicate a potential stability concern.
Keywords
References
- 1. Petrey JS, Saunders MM, Kluemper GT, Cunningham LL, Beeman CS. Angle Orthod 2010;80:634-641.
- 2. El H, Kan H, Adiloglu I, Aktas G, Kocadereli İ. Orthodontic treatment of relapse using the preinserted endosseous dental implants. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2011;14:119-124.
- 3. Hyde JD, King GJ. Survey of orthodontists’ attitudes and experiences regarding miniscrew implants. J Clin Orthod 2010;44:481- 486.
- 4. Motoyoshi M, Hirabayashi M, Uemura M, Shimizu N. Recommended placement torque when tightening an orthodontic miniimplant. Clin Oral Impl Res 2006;17:109-114.
- 5. Pithon MM, Nojima MG, Nojima LI. In vitro evaluation of insertion and removal torques of orthodontic miniimplants. Intl J Oral Max. Surg 2011;40:80-85.
- 6. Baumgaertel S. Predrilling of the implant site: Is it necessary for orthodontic mini-implants? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:825-829.
- 7. Cleveland J, Kohn W. CDC weighs in on TADs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:622- 623.
- 8. Scholz RP, Cook A. Sterilization requirements for the placement of temporary anchorage devices. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:S20-S22.
Details
Primary Language
English
Subjects
-
Journal Section
-
Publication Date
May 2, 2014
Submission Date
June 14, 2013
Acceptance Date
-
Published in Issue
Year 2014 Volume: 17 Number: 2
Cited By
Effect of photodynamic therapy on surface decontamination in clinical orthodontic instruments
Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdpdt.2018.09.003