PURPOSEThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of abutment screw length and cyclic loading on the removal torque (RTV) in external hex (EH) and internal hex (IH) implants.MATERIALS AND METHODSForty screw-retained single crowns were connected to external and internal hex implants. The prepared titanium abutment screws were classified into 8 groups based on the number of threads (n = 5 per group): EH 12.5, 6.5, 3.5, 2.5 and IH 6.5, 5, 3.5, 2.5 threads. The abutment screws were tightened with 20 Ncm torque twice with 10-minute intervals. After 5 minutes, the initial RTVs of the abutment screws were measured with a digital torque gauge (MGT12). A customized jig was constructed to apply a load along the implant long axis at the central fossa of the maxillary first molar. The post-loading RTVs were measured after 16,000 cycles of mechanical loading with 50 N at a 1-Hz frequency. Statistical analysis included one-way analysis of variance and paired t-tests.RESULTSThe post-loading RTVs were significantly lower than the initial RTVs in the EH 2.5 thread and IH 2.5 thread groups (P<.05). The initial RTVs exhibited no significant differences among the 8 groups, whereas the post-loading RTVs of the EH 6.5 and EH 3.5 thread groups were higher than those of the IH 3.5 thread group (P<.05).CONCLUSIONWithin the limitations of this study, the external hex implants with short screw lengths were more advantageous than internal hex implants with short screw lengths in torque maintenance after cyclic loading.

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to analyze tooth movement and arch width changes in maxillary dentition following nonextraction treatment with orthodontic mini-implant (OMI) anchorage in Class II division 1 malocclusions.MethodsSeventeen adult patients diagnosed with Angle's Class II division 1 malocclusion were treated by nonextraction with OMIs as anchorage for distalization of whole maxillary dentition. Three-dimensional virtual maxillary models were superimposed with the best-fit method at the pretreatment and post-treatment stages. Linear, angular, and arch width variables were measured using Rapidform 2006 software, and analyzed by the paired t-test.ResultsAll maxillary teeth showed statistically significant movement posteriorly (p < 0.05). There were no significant changes in the vertical position of the maxillary teeth, except that the second molars were extruded (0.86 mm, p < 0.01). The maxillary first and second molars were rotated distal-in (4.5°, p < 0.001; 3.0°, p < 0.05, respectively). The intersecond molar width increased slightly (0.1 mm, p > 0.05) and the intercanine, interfirst premolar, intersecond premolar, and interfirst molar widths increased significantly (2.2 mm, p < 0.01; 2.2 mm, p < 0.05; 1.9 mm, p < 0.01; 2.0 mm, p < 0.01; respectively).ConclusionsNonextraction treatment with OMI anchorage for Class II division 1 malocclusions could retract the whole maxillary dentition to achieve a Class I canine and molar relationship without a change in the vertical position of the teeth; however, the second molars were significantly extruded. Simultaneously, the maxillary arch was shown to be expanded with distal-in rotation of the molars.

No abstract