ArticleHeliyon2023
The effect of different orthodontic mini-implant brands and geometry on primary stability (an in vitro study).
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Analysis of Insertion Torque of Orthodontic Mini-Implants Depending on the System and the Morphological Substrate.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In orthodontic procedures, mini-implants are routinely used as temporary anchorage devices. Early failure is primarily attributed to a variety of issues, which are mostly connected to the quality and geometry of the screw that lead to insufficient primary stability. Objectives: To evaluate the primary stability of different sizes and brands of orthodontic mini-implants by optimizing the insertion torque value (ITV) and to clear out which one has the greatest primary stability among the most widely used mini-implants by orthodontists. Methods: Eighty-two self-drilling mini-implants from three different brands with different sizes were used (Optimus Ortho System (Osteonic made in Korea), Smart anchor (GNI made in Korea) (1.4 × 6, 1.6 × 8 and 1.8 × 10mm) and Morelli (made in Brazil) (1.5 × 6, 1.5 × 8 and 1.5 × 10mm), made from (Ti 6Al 4V). All were drilled at a 60° angle on Sixty artificial bone blocks made from polyurethane foam with a digital torque meter device (Orthonia, Jeil made in Korea), pullout strength (tensile force) was measured with a universal testing machine to find out the best brand and size in the mean of primary stability. Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 25 and JMP Pro Version 16 software using the One-way ANOVA test, the Post hoc and Tukey HCD tests. Results: There were significant differences between the pullout strength of different sizes for the GNI and OSTEONIC brands, while for the MORELLI brand there were no significant differences between the three different sizes considering ITV (10Ncm) whereas for ITV (20Ncm) there was a significant difference between the different sizes for the pullout of all three brands. GNI was the best brand for all the selected sizes with ITV (10Ncm) and size 1.4 × 6 for ITV (20Ncm), whereas OSTEONIC sizes 1.6 × 8 and 1.8 × 10 were the best for ITV (20Ncm) in term of primary stability. Conclusion: GNI screws were demonstrated higher primary among the three widely used brands followed by OSTEONIC for size 1.6 × 8 and 1.8 × 10 while MORELLI was the least resistant to dislodgement for the two torque insertion values 10 N/cm and 20 N/cm.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.