Adriano G Crismani | Search PubMed

PubMed2002

Rectangular loops in inconsistent force systems: a laboratory investigation.

MATERIAL AND METHOD: [corrected] The force system delivered by the rectangular loop (R-loop) was the subject of this in-vitro investigation. The correction of a first-order irregularity was simulated in an inconsistent force system. Three types of R-loop made of 0.017" x 0.025" TMA wire but differing in length and insertion system were tested in a 3D strain gauge (Hottinger, Darmstadt, Germany). The buccal segment consisted of one molar and two bicuspids, with the first bicuspid as an active unit scheduled to be moved buccally into the dental arch. RESULTS: The first R-loop tested revealed too high a force magnitude to be recommended for clinical use. A loop connecting only two teeth and bypassing the second premolar delivered a favorable initial force of 85 cN with a drop of 20 cN per 1 mm deactivation. In order to achieve a translatory tooth movement, a buccal root torque must be bent in addition into the short horizontal leg of the R-loop. The use of a transpalatal arch is indispensable if adverse side effects are to be avoided.

Biomechanical Phenomena↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Nasal cavity perforation by palatal implants: false-positive records on the lateral cephalogram.

PURPOSE: Lateral cephalometric films were examined for their validity as a tool for the postoperative evaluation of palatal implant placement. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cephalometric and histometric data of 20 partially edentulous human cadaveric maxillae were compared. Lateral cephalograms of the specimens were made, and the palatal complex was pencil traced. In addition, low-dose dental computerized tomography (CT) scans were obtained from every specimen. Based on the CT data, palatal implants (Orthosystem; Institut Straumann, Waldenburg, Switzerland) were placed. Postimplantation, another lateral cephalometric film was recorded. The specimens were prepared for histologic examination. The preoperative tracings were superimposed on the postoperative cephalometric films. RESULTS: Of 20 implants placed, 12 were 4 mm long and 8 were 6 mm long. The distance between the cranial end of the implants and the nasal floor on microscopy ranged from 0.3 to 9.3 mm. Perforation of the nasal floor was absent throughout on intraoperative probing, while 2 implants projected beyond the nasal floor on histologic analysis of the specimens. An analysis of the superimposed pre- and postoperative cephalograms showed 5 implants projecting beyond the nasal floor. Histologically, only 1 of these projecting implants had actually caused perforation of the palatal complex. A comparison between the histometric and the cephalometric data showed that cephalometry, on average, imaged the palatal complex 0.8 mm below the actual anatomic site. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Twenty percent of palatal implants projecting beyond the nasal floor were false-positive records on the postoperative lateral cephalograms. Despite CT scans, 10% of the implants placed caused fenestration of the nasal cavity by histologic evidence. If the palatal complex was perforated, intraoperative probing with a periodontal probe did not confirm the perforation. Bone perforations up to 1.3 mm did not necessarily result in frank perforation of the nasal mucosa. Two-dimensional images could not be related to actual penetrations into the nasal cavity.

Adult↗