Miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE): how to achieve greater stability. In vitro study

COPELLO, Flávio de Mendonça; BRUNETTO, Daniel Paludo; ELIAS, Carlos Nelson; PITHON, Matheus Melo; COQUEIRO, Raildo Silva; CASTRO, Amanda Cunha Regal de; SANT’ANNA, Eduardo Franzotti

doi:10.1590/2177-6709.26.1.e211967.oar

home Sumário navigate_before Anterior Atual Seguinte navigate_next

home Sumário

ORIGINAL ARTICLE • Dental Press J. Orthod. 26 (01) • 2021 • https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.26.1.e211967.oar linkcopy

Miniscrew-assisted rapid palatal expansion (MARPE): how to achieve greater stability. In vitro study

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective: Assess the influence of mono- and bicortical anchorage and diameter of mini-implants (MIs) on the primary stability of these devices.

Methods: 60 self-drilling MIs were distributed in six groups according to diameter (1.5mm, 1.8mm or 2.0mm) and type of anchorage (monocortical and bicortical) in bovine rib. The primary stability was evaluated by insertion torque, micromobility and pull-out strength tests. ANOVA and/or Tukey analysis were used to conduct intergroup comparisons (p< 0.05). Non-parametric statistics (Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney) were performed when normality was not found (p< 0.05).

Results: MIs with larger diameters and bicortical anchorage showed greater primary stability regarding insertion torque (p< 0.05) and micromobility (p< 0.05). Only MI diameter had an effect on the pull-out strength test. Larger diameter MIs presented better retention in pull-out strength tests (p< 0.001), regardless of mono- or bicortical anchorage.

Conclusions: MI primary stability is dependent on its diameter and type of anchorage. Bicortical anchorage showed greater stability when compared with monocortical anchorage, independently of other variables.

Keywords:
Dental materials; Orthodontic anchorage procedures; Palatal expansion technique

Primary Stability Tests	BI	Diameter (D)			Effect	*p-valor
Primary Stability Tests	BI	1.5 mm	1.8 mm	2.0 mm
Insertion Torque (Ncm)					D	< 0.001
	MC	16.66 ± 0.45^a	18.95 ± 0.33^b	29.67 ± 0.34^c	BI	< 0.001
	BC	24.61 ± 0.47^a†	28.13 ± 0.18^b†	37.00 ± 0.19^c†	D x BI	< 0.001
Pull-out Strength (N)		a	b	c	D	< 0.001
	MC	124.23 ± 4.10	182.78 ± 2.87	268.40 ± 5.05	BI	0.288
	BC	125.58 ± 4.84	181.87 ± 3.98	271.41 ± 3.70	D x BI	0.335

Bone Insertion	Diameter			*p-valor
Bone Insertion	1.5 mm	1.8 mm	2.0 mm
Monocortical	17.75 ± 1,10^a	14.25 ± 0,60^b	4.50 ± 0.60^c	< 0.001
Bicortical	14.00 ± 0,06^a	9.00 ± 0,80^b	1.00 ± 1.00^c	< 0.001
^†p-valor	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

vertical_align_top show_chart

more_horiz close
- image
- translate
- link
- article
- vertical_align_top
- file_download
- show_chart
- image
- translate
- link
- article

location_on

Dental Press International Av. Luís Teixeira Mendes, 2712 , 87015-001 - Maringá - PR, Tel: (55 44) 3033-9818 - Maringá - PR - Brazil
E-mail: artigos@dentalpress.com.br

rss_feed Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[TFN1] D, Diameter; BI, Bone Insertion; D x BI, effect between diameter and bone insertion; MC, monocortical; BC, bicortical. Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. * ANOVA two-way: a, b, c distinct letters indicate statistical difference (p ≤ 0.05) between the diameters, according to the comparisons for interaction effect (insertion torque) and Tukey test (pull-out strength) ; ^† indicates statistical difference (p ≤ 0.05) between types of bone insertion.