ArticleJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2018
In vitro biocompatibility of orthodontic miniscrews with human gingival fibroblast and SAOS-2 osteoblast cultures.
Article in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electrophoretic Coatings for Orthodontic Implants: Evaluation of Surface Properties, Adhesion, and Antibacterial Activity in Simulated Implantation Trials.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Investigating adhesion of primary human gingival fibroblasts and osteoblasts to orthodontic mini-implants by scanning electron microscopy.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Thread shape, cortical bone thickness, and magnitude and distribution of stress caused by the loading of orthodontic miniscrews: finite element analysis.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Cytotoxicity effect of orthodontic miniscrew-implant in different types of mouthwash: An in-vitro study.Journal of orthodontic science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeMiniscrews are an important choice for orthodontic anchorage. Yet reports on failures do exist, and attempts have been made to elucidate the causes. Clinical outcomes may be compromised not only by the mechanical implications of miniscrew design and the location of anchorage but also by poor biocompatibility. Hence, this study deals with the surface roughness and elemental composition of miniscrews and how these properties may affect the in vitro biocompatibility of four commercially available miniscrews.
methodsMost of the currently available miniscrews are made of TiAl6V4, an alloy widely considered to be biocompatible. The samples tested in this study included four similarly dimensioned TiAl6V4 products from different manufacturers: tomas® by Dentaurum, OrthoEasy® by Forestadent®, Dual Top™ by Jeil Medical/Promedia, and LOMAS by Mondeal®. The surface properties of these products were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X‑ray spectroscopy (EDX). Cytotoxicity was assessed by 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) and agar overlay assays according to ISO 10993-5.
resultsThe miniscrew products were found to show variations in surface-finish quality pertaining to topography and chemical composition, with the latter departing slightly from the manufacturers' specifications. MTT assays yielded rates of cell culture viability in excess of 90%, and agar overlay assays did not reveal decoloration beyond the specimen outlines in any of the experimental groups tested.
conclusionsThe four miniscrew products exhibited some minor, but statistically significant, differences in microtopography, alloy composition, and biological inertness. Cytotoxicity testing revealed that all four products should be considered non-cytotoxic, thus, ruling out poor biocompatibility as a cause of miniscrew failure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30014178What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.