대한치과교정학회지 (The korean journal of orthodontics)

  • 제37권3호
  • /
  • Pages.171-181
  • /
  • 2007
  • /
  • 2234-7518(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-372X(eISSN)
대한치과교정학회 (The Korean Association Of Orthodontists)
권호 표지

교정용 마이크로 임플란트의 디자인이 토오크와 파절강도에 미치는 영향

Torque and mechanical failure of orthodontic micro-implant influenced by implant design parameters

  • 유원재 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 교정학교실) ;
  • 경희문 (경북대학교 치의학전문대학원 교정학교실)
  • Yu, Won-Jae (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kyung, Hee-Moon (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • 발행 : 2007.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

마이크로 임플란트의 식립 혹은 제거 시의 토오크는 안정성과 기계적 파절 가능성에 대한 척도가 되므로 골조건 및 임플란트의 디자인과 연계한 생역학적 분석을 통해 이를 해석적으로 예측하는 수단을 갖는 것이 의미 있는 과제라 사료된다. 이에 본 연구에서는, 국산 Absoanchor (Dentos Inc. Daegu, Korea) 마이크로 임플란트 모델을 대상으로 하여 기본적 디자인 변수(design parameter)인 길이, 직경, 나사산 크기와 토오크 및 임플란트의 비틀림 파절강도와의 역학적 상관관계에 대해 해석하였으며, 골특성이 미치는 영향을 고려하기 위해서 임플란트/해면골 계면의 저항력$(S_{can})$을 $1.0{\sim}2.5MPa$ 범위로 설정하였다. 분석을 위해 임플란트 디자인 변수들만의 함수인 토오크 지수와 비틀림 파절 강도의 지표인 강도 지수를 정의하였다. 분석결과, 임플란트 직경이 증가할수록 토오크 지수가 증가하지만 강도 지수가 토오크 지수보다 증가율이 커서 비틀림 파절에 대한 안전영역이 증가하였으며, 나사산 높이가 커지면 토오크 지수가 증가하지만 강도 지수는 감소되는 것을 관찰하였다. Absoanchor 마이크로 임플란트는 해면골과 계면에서의 저항력$(S_{can})$이 1.0 MPa 이하에서는 전 모델이 토오크에 의한 비틀림 파절로부터 안전한 것으로 분석되었으나 $(S_{can})$이 증가하면 일부 모델에서는 파절 위험성이 있는 것으로 분석되었다. $S_{can}$이 1.5 MPa수준에서는 경부직경이 1.5 mm 이상이면 전체 길이$(5{\sim}12mm)$에서 안전하였다. 또한, $S_{can}$이 2.0 MPa 수준에서 식립깊이 8 mm를 가지려면 경부직경이 1.5 mm 이상인 모델을 선정하는 것이 안전한 것으로 분석되었다.

Objective: The present study was aimed at an analytical formulation of the micro-implant related torque as a function of implant size, i.e. the diameter and length, screw size, and the bony resistance at the implant to bone interface. Methods: The resistance at the implant to cancellous bone interface $(S_{can})$ was assumed to be in the range of 1.0-2.5 MPa. Micro-implant model of Absoanchor (Dentos Inc. Daegu, Korea) was used in the course of the analysis. Results: The results showed that the torque was a strong function of diameter, length, and the screw height. As the diameter increased and as the screw size decreased, the torque index decreased. However the strength index was a different function of the implant and bone factors. The whole Absoanchor implant models were within the safe region when the resistance at the implant/cancellous bone $(=S_{can})$ was 1.0 or less. Conclusion: For bone with $S_{can}$ of 1.5 MPa, the cervical diameter should be greater than 1.5 mm if micro-implant models of 12 mm long are to be placed. For $S_{can}$ of 2.0 MPa, micro-implant models of larger cervical diameter than 1.5 mm were found to be safe only if the endosseous length was less than 8 mm.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Bae SM, Park HS, Kyung HM, Sung JH. Micro-implant anchorage for treatment of skeletal Class I bialveolar protrusion. J Clin Orthod 2001;35;417-22
  2. Park HS. Clinical study on success rate of microscrew implants for orthodontic anchorage. Korean J Orthod 2003;33: 151-6
  3. Motoyoshi M, Hirabayashi M, Uemura M, Shimizu N. Recommended placement torque when tightening an orthodontic mini-implant. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17: 109-14 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01211.x
  4. Quirynen M, Naert I, van Steenberghe D, Nys L. A study of 589 consecutive implants supporting complete fixed prostheses. Part I: periodontal aspects. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:655-63 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90383-L
  5. Degidi M, Piattelli A, Gehrke P, Carinci F. Clinical outcome of 802 immediately loaded 2-stage submerged implants with a new grit-blasted and acid-etched surface: 12-month follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:763-8
  6. Bae SM, Park HS, Kyung HM, Sung JH. Ultimate anchorage control. Tex Dent J 2002;119:580-91
  7. Bae SM, Kyung HM. Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage (MIA) in orthodontics - anatomic consideration and surgical procedures. The Korean Journal of Clinical Orthodontics 2002;1: 16-29
  8. Wilmes B, Rademacher C, Olthoff G, Drescher D. Parameters Affecting Primary Stability of Orthodontic Mini-implants. J Orofac Orthop 2006;67:162-74 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-006-0611-z
  9. Akca K, Chang TL, Tekdemir I, Fanuscu MI. Biomechanical aspects of initial intraosseous stability and implant design: a quantitative micro-morphometric analysis. Clin Oral Implants Res 2006;17:465- 72 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2006.01265.x
  10. Maniatopoulos C, Pilliar RM, Smith DC. Threaded versus poroussurfaced designs for implant stabilization in bone-endodontic implant model. J Biomed Mater Res 1986;20:1309-33 https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.820200907
  11. Szmukler-Moncler S, Salama H, Reingewirtz Y, Dubruille JH. Timing of loading and effect of micromotion on bone-dental implant interface: review of experimental literature. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;43: 192-203 https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4636(199822)43:2<192::AID-JBM14>3.0.CO;2-K
  12. Pilliar RM, Lee JM, Maniatopoulos C. Observations on the effect of movement on bone ingrowth into porous-surfaced implants. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1986;208: 108-13
  13. Soballe K, Hansen ES, B-Rasmussen H, Jorgensen PH, Bunger C. Tissue ingrowth into titanium and hydroxyapatite-coated implants during stable and unstable mechanical conditions. J Orthop Res 1992; 10:285-99 https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.1100100216
  14. Nkenke E, Hahn M, Weinzierl K, Radespiel-Troger M, Neukam FW, Engelke K. Implant stability and histomorphometry: a correlation study in human cadavers using stepped cylinder implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2003;14:601-9 https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0501.2003.00937.x
  15. Turkyilmaz I. A comparison between insertion torque and resonance frequency in the assessment of torque capacity and primary stability of Branemark system implants. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33:754-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01631.x
  16. Frost HM. Wolffs Law and bone's structural adaptations to mechanical usage: an overview for clinicians. Angle Orthod 1994;64:175-88
  17. Sugiura T, Horiuchi K, Sugimura M, Tsutsumi S. Evaluation of threshold stress for bone resorption around screws based on in vivo strain measurement of miniplate. J Musculoskel Neuronal Interact 2000;1: 165-70
  18. Kang ST, Kwon OW, Sung JH, Kyung HM, Park HS. Comparison of histologic observation and insertional and removal torque values between titanium grade 2 and 4 microimplants. Korean J Orthod 2006;36:171-7
  19. Kim JW, Cho IS, Lee SJ, Kim TW, Chang YI. Effect of dual pitch mini-implant design and diameter of an orthodontic mini-implant on the insertion and removal torque. Korean J Orthod 2006;36:275-83
  20. Sung JH, Kyung HM, Bae SM, Park HS, Kwon OW, McNamara JA. Microimplants in orthodontics. Dentos, Daegu, Korea. Chap.3:34-6
  21. Materials Properties Handbook: Titanium Alloys, R. Boyer, G. Welsch, and E. W. Callings, eds. ASM International, Materials Park, OH, USA. 1994
  22. Kato N, Koshino T, Saito T, Takeuchi R. Estimation of Young's modulus in swine cortical bone using quantitative computed tomography. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 1998;57:183-6
  23. Tricio J, van Steenberghe D, Rosenberg D, Duchateau L. Implant stability related to insertion torque force and bone density: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:608-12 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80313-0
  24. Calandriello R, Tomatis M, Rangert B. Immediate functional loading of Branemark System implants with enhanced initial stability: a prospective 1- to 2-year clinical and radiographic study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 2003;5 Suppl 1:10-20 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8208.2003.tb00011.x
  25. Lee JH, Chang BS, Lee CK. Evaluation of osseointegration in titanium alloy cortical screws with the passage of time. Journal of the Korean Society Fractures 2004; 17:401-7 https://doi.org/10.12671/jkfs.2004.17.4.401