This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Deguchi, T. Articles by Garetto, L.P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Deguchi, T. Articles by Garetto, L.P. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Use of Small Titanium Screws for Orthodontic Anchorage

¹ Department of Orthodontics, Okayama University Graduate School of Medicine and Dentistry, 2-5-1, Shikata-cho, Okayama, 700, Japan;
² Kanomi Dental Clinic, 30-1-MD Minamiekimae-cho Himeji, 670, Japan;
³ Department of Oral Facial Development, Indiana University School of Dentistry, 1121 West Michigan Street, Indianapolis, IN 46202; and
⁴ Department of Cellular/Integrative Physiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, 635 Barnhill Drive, Indianapolis, IN 46202;

View larger version (33K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 1. A photograph of the titanium screw and the plate (a), locations of implants (b), and timetable for placing implants (c). W = wks; FA = force applied to groups; HC = healing control groups; T = tetracycline; CG = calcein green.

View larger version (28K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 2. Static histomorphometric data. Bone-implant contact from the microradiograph analysis in the healing control at 3 (N = 6), 6 (N = 7). and 12 (N = 6) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 6), 6 (N = 6), and 12 (N = 6) wks in the maxilla (a). Bone-implant contact in the healing control at 3 (N = 7), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 6) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 8), 6 (N = 6), and 12 (N = 6) wks in the mandible (b). In the maxillary implants, the HC rate at 3 wks is much higher than those in other groups. WV/TV rates from the microradiograph analysis in the healing control at 3 (N = 8), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 6) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 7), 6 (N = 6), and 12 (N = 6) wks in the maxilla (c). WV/TV rates in the healing control at 3 (N = 7), 6 (N = 8), and 12 (N = 6) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 7), 6 (N = 6), and 12 (N= 8) wks in the mandible (d). In both jaws, about half of the total bone volume shows woven bone formation in the three-week HC. BV/TV rates from the bright-field microscopic analysis in the healing control at 3 (N = 6), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 6) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 8), 6 (N = 6), and 12 (N = 6) wks in the maxilla (e). BV/TV rates in the healing control at 3 (N = 7), 6 (N = 8), and 12 (N = 8) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 6), 6 (N = 6), and 12 (N= 7) wks in the mandible (f). The 12-week group shows a significantly lower rate in the HC and a significantly higher rate in the FA compared with other groups. *Significantly higher than in the six- and 12-week groups (p < 0.05); **significantly higher than in the 12-week groups (p < 0.05); ***significantly lower than in the three- and six-week groups (p < 0.05); HC = healing control group; FA = force-applied group.

View larger version (32K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 3. Dynamic histomorphometric data. MS/BS rates in the healing control at 3 (N = 6), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 7) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 8), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 6) wks in the maxilla (a). MS/BS rates in the healing control at 3 (N = 8), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 8) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 7), 6 (N = 5), and 12 (N = 8) wks in the mandible (b). The three-week MS/BS is significantly higher than that in the other groups in both jaws. MAR rates in the healing control at 3 (N = 6), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 7) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 8), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 6) wks in the maxilla (c). MAR rates in the healing control at 3 (N = 8), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 8) wks and force applied 3 (N = 7), 6 (N = 5), and 12 (N = 8) wks in the mandible (d). The three-week MAR is significantly higher than that in other groups in both jaws. BFR rates in the healing control at 3 (N = 6), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 7) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 8), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 6) wks in the maxilla (e). BFR rates in the healing control at 3 (N = 8), 6 (N = 7), and 12 (N = 8) wks and force applied at 3 (N = 7), 6 (N = 5), and 12 (N = 8) wks in the mandible (f). The three-week BFR is significantly higher than that in other groups in both jaws. *Significantly higher rate than in the six- and 12-week groups (p < 0.05); **significantly higher than in the three-week groups (p < 0.05); ***significantly higher than in the 12-week groups (p < 0.05); HC = healing control group; FA = force-applied group.

View larger version (103K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Figure 4. Representative fluorescent (a,c,e) and polarized (b,d,f) microscopic photographs. Three-week HC in the maxilla (a,b), 12-week HC in the mandible (c,d), and three-week FA in the mandible (e,f). In three-week groups, intense fluorescent labels and woven bone (W) formation were observed adjacent to the implant (I), whereas in 12-week HC and three-week FA, fewer labels and less lamellar (L) bone formation were predominantly observed. Bars indicate 0.5 mm.

Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 82, No. 5, 377-381 (2003)
DOI: 10.1177/154405910308200510


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?