reasons for mini-implants failure: choosing installation site should be valued!
Clicks: 89
ID: 239726
2014
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Emerging Content
27.0
/100
89 views
17 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
EmergingRanked #41 of 47 articles by views in biosaintifika: journal of biology & biology education
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Mini-implant loss is often associated with physical and mechanical aspects that result from choosing an inappropriate placement site. It is worth highlighting that: a) Interdental alveolar bone crests are flexible and deformable. For this reason, they may not offer the ideal absolute anchorage. The more cervical the structures, the more delicate they are, thus offering less physical support for mini-implant placement; b) Alveolar bone crests of triangular shape are more deformable, whereas those of rectangular shape are more flexible; c) The bases of the alveolar processes of the maxilla and the mandible are not flexible, for this reason, they are more likely to receive mini-implants; d) The more cervical a mini-implant is placed, the higher the risk of loss; the more apical a mini-implant is placed, the better its prognosis will be; e) 3D evaluations play a major role in planning the use of mini-implants. Based on the aforementioned considerations, the hypotheses about mini-implant loss are as follows: 1) Deflection of maxillary and mandibular alveolar processes when mini-implants are more cervically placed; 2) Mini-implants placed too near the periodontal ligament, with normal intra-alveolar tooth movement; 3) Low bone density, low thickness and low alveolar bone volume; 4) Low alveolar cortical bone thickness; 5) Excessive pressure inducing trabecular bone microfracture; 6) Sites of higher anatomical weakness in the mandible and the maxilla; 7) Thicker gingival tissue not considered when choosing the mini-implant.
| Reference Key |
consolaro2014dentalreasons
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Alberto Consolaro;Fábio Lourenço Romano |
| Journal | biosaintifika: journal of biology & biology education |
| Year | 2014 |
| DOI |
10.1590/2176-9451.19.2.018-024.oin
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.