Orthodontic loading of titanium miniplates in dogs: microradiographic and histological evaluation

Abstract

Osseointegration underlying orthodontic anchorage was not affected by loading. BIC increased with time and varied according to implantation site. Particularly the tight-fitting screw insertion appeared crucial in determining the appropriate bone healing response.

Success rates, risk factors and complications of miniplates used for orthodontic anchorage

“…35 For example, when the initially drilled hole had to be redrilled on a slightly different axis during miniplate placement, woven bone could be observed in dogs as a repair process, 27 which might argue in favor of a drill-free technique. It is known from dental implants that excessive surgical trauma impedes the ability to establish the necessary intimate bone-implant contact.…”

“…27 However, although miniplates can become mobile, some are still sufficiently firm to provide the necessary anchorage to achieve the treatment objectives (Fig. Histologically, screws without the bone-to-screw contact needed for stability are surrounded with a large radiotransparent space, with bone resorption and absence of osteoblastic activity, and are exclusively in contact with dense fibrous tissue.…”

“…48.8). 27 Therefore, it is recommended that plates are removed as soon as they are no longer needed. 38 As long as titanium is used for miniplate fabrication, even if uncoated and polished, some degree of bone-to-screw contact does occur, which increases with time and in some cases even extends from the screws to the plate.…”

Does orthodontic loading influence bone mineral density around titanium miniplates? An experimental study in dogs

“…We recently assessed histomorphometrically bone‐screw contact and bone volume around screws of miniplates and found no influence of orthodontic load on bone reactions (11). In the same animal experiment, we measured bone mineral density (BMD) around the screws supporting the orthodontic miniplates.…”

MPC polymer regulates fibrous tissue formation by modulating cell adhesion to the biomaterial surface

“…Despite the laudable treatment success achieved with these biomaterials, the downside is that biomaterials implanted into the body frequently induce inflammation and immune responses, often leading to fibrous scar formation 2) . Although these reactions are a result of normal histological repair responses to foreign bodies, active scar formation may result in unfavorable outcomes, such as breast collapse after prosthetic implantation 3) and stiff joints after artificial joint replacement 4) .…”