These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of screw diameter on orthodontic skeletal anchorage.
    Author: Morarend C, Qian F, Marshall SD, Southard KA, Grosland NM, Morgan TA, McManus M, Southard TE.
    Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Aug; 136(2):224-9. PubMed ID: 19651352.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: Many case reports have documented the successful use of titanium miniscrews for orthodontic anchorage. However, the literature lacks a well-controlled study examining the effect of miniscrew diameter on anchorage force resistance. The purpose of this in-vitro study was to compare the force resistance of larger-diameter monocortical miniscrews to smaller-diameter monocortical miniscrews; and to compare the force resistance of larger-diameter monocortical miniscrews to smaller-diameter bicortical miniscrews. METHODS: Ninety-six titanium alloy screws were placed into 24 hemisected maxillary and 24 hemisected mandibular specimens between the first and second premolars. Specimens were randomly and evenly divided into 2 groups. In the first group, 24 large-diameter screws (2.5 x 17 mm) and with 24 small-diameter screws (1.5 x 15 mm) were placed monocortically. In the second group, 24 large-diameter screws (2.5 x 17 mm) were placed monocortically and 24 small-diameter screws (1.5 x 15 mm) were placed bicortically. All screws were subjected to tangential force loading perpendicular to the miniscrew with lateral displacement of 0.6 mm. Statistical analyses, including the paired-samples t test and the 2-samples t test, were used to quantify screw force-deflection characteristics. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the post-hoc Tukey studentized range test was used to determine any significant differences, and the order of those differences, in force anchorage values among the 3 screw types at maxillary and mandibular sites. RESULTS: Mean mandibular and maxillary anchorage force values of the 2.5-mm monocortical screws were significantly greater than those of the 1.5-mm monocortical screws (P <0.01). No statistically significant differences in mean mandibular anchorage force values were found between the 2.5-mm monocortical screws and the 1.5-mm bicortical screws. However, mean maxillary anchorage force values of the 1.5-mm bicortical screws were significantly greater than those of the 2.5-mm monocortical screws (P <0.01). Data analyzed with 1-way ANOVA with the post-hoc Tukey studentized range tests indicated that the mean mandibular and maxillary force values of the 2.5-mm monocortical screws and the 1.5-mm bicortical screws were significantly greater than those of the 1.5-mm monocortical screws (P <0.01). Based on the 2-samples t test, mean anchorage force values at mandibular sites were significantly greater than at maxillary sites for the 2.5-mm monocortical screws and the 1.5-mm monocortical screws. There were no statistically significant differences in mean anchorage force values between maxillary and mandibular sites for the 1.5-mm bicortical screws. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro, larger-diameter (2.5 mm) monocortical screws provide greater anchorage force resistance than do smaller-diameter (1.5 mm) monocortical screws in both the mandible and the maxilla. Smaller-diameter (1.5 mm) bicortical screws provide anchorage force resistance at least equal to larger-diameter (2.5 mm) monocortical screws. An alternative to placing a larger-diameter miniscrew for additional anchorage is a narrower bicortical screw.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]