Periodontopathogens around the surface of mini-implants removed from orthodontic patients

Abstract

Objective: To verify if mini-implant mobility is affected by the presence of periodontopathogens, frequently associated with peri-implantitis. Materials and Methods: The surfaces of 31 mini-implants used for skeletal anchorage in orthodontic patients were evaluated. Polymerase chain reaction was used for identification of the presence of DNA from three different periodontopathogens (P. intermedia [Pi ], A. actinomycetemcomitans [Aa], and P. gingivalis [Pg]) in 16 mini-implants without mobility (control group) and 15 mini-implants with mobility (experimental group). Results: The results showed that Pi was present in 100% of the samples, from both groups: Aa was found in 31.3% of the control group and in 13.3% of the experimental group. Pg was detected in 37.4% of the control group and in 33.3% of the experimental group. The Fisher exact test and the odds ratio (OR) values for Aa and Pg (OR 5 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05-2.10 and OR 5 0.61; 95% CI: 0.13-2.79, respectively) showed no significant association (P . .05) between the periodontopathogens studied and the mobility of the mini-implants. Conclusions: It can be concluded that the presence of Aa, Pi, and Pg around mini-implants is not associated with mobility. (Angle Orthod. 2012;82:591-595.)

Bacterial biofilm on successful and failed orthodontic mini‐implants—a scanning electron microscopy study

“…In the same way as for periodontal disease, the contamination of peri‐implant tissues by pathogenic bacteria contributes for loss of secondary stability of orthodontic mini‐implants. However, as demonstrated hereby and by other authors (Tortamano et al, ), the presence of microorganisms alone is not sufficient to cause implant failure. Other factors should be considered to increase the success rate orthodontic mini‐implants, namely load applied to the mini‐implants (Estelita et al, ), placement technique, type of mini‐implant (self‐tapping or self‐drilling) (Estelita et al, ; Wilmes and Drescher, ), insertion torque, mini‐implant length and diameter (Antoszewska et al, ; Pithon et al, ; Wilmes et al, ), cortical bone thickness (Wilmes and Drescher, ), latency period before loading (Motoyoshi, ; Motoyoshi et al, ) versus immediate loading before 3 weeks of healing (Zhao et al, ) and insertion site (maxilla or mandible) (Wu et al, ).…”

“…The factors and mechanisms that lead to loss of stability of orthodontic mini‐implants are not yet fully elucidated, but possible causes include: incorrect placement, proximity with dental roots, lack of primary stability, and contamination of the device with pathogenic bacteria. Different studies have shown that mini‐implants with signs of peri‐implantitis contain subgingival microbiota very similar to that found in periodontal disease, with progressive breakdown of soft and hard peri‐implant tissues (Chen et al, ; Mombelli et al, ; Tortamano et al, ). However, the results of the present study were not supportive to existence of a relationship between loss of stability and presence of microorganisms on the surface of mini‐implant components (head, transmucosal profile, and body).…”

“…However, limited research has been done on the causes of failure of orthodontic mini-implants (Apel et al, 2009;Freitas et al, 2012;Tortamano et al, 2012). It has been demonstrated stability of orthodontic mini-implants subjected to loads between 50 and 250 gf (Liou et al, 2004;Tortamano et al, 2012), but mobility may occur before or during orthodontic loading, ultimately resulting in loss of the device. The failure rate of mini-implants varies from 6.6 to 16.15%, which was higher compared with dental implants (3%) and other anchorage devices like miniplates (2.6-7.3%) (Miyawaki et al, 2003;Park et al, 2005;Tortamano et al, 2012).…”

“…Despite the relevance of the subject, few studies have attempted to establish a relationship between presence of microorganisms and failure of orthodontic mini‐implants (Apel et al, ; Freitas et al, ; Tortamano et al, ). In the present study, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to assess the presence of microorganisms on the surface of successful (stable) and failed (unstable) mini‐implants.…”

Dynamics of alveolar bone healing after the removal of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices

“…Clinically, the removal of TADs is considered minimally invasive and the small, transient intraoral open wounds created by their removal are assumed to undergo spontaneous healing . However, fairly high risks of irreversible soft tissue scarring, sinus tracts accompanied by inflammation, and disturbed wound healing due to bony sequestra have been reported at TAD removal sites, with periodontal pathogens commonly detected in retrieved TADs . This raises concerns about possible incomplete healing after TAD removal.…”