Reem A. Alansari, Khaled H. Zawawi, Nikhillesh Vaiid, Zuhair Natto, Samar M. Adel, Maha R. Alshihri, Mohammed Alsadat, Rania Dause, Shoroog Agou, Ali H. Hassan
{"title":"电机驱动的正畸微型螺钉插入是否比手动插入更有优势？对兔子骨小螺钉接触表面积和皮质微裂缝的显微 CT 评估。","authors":"Reem A. Alansari, Khaled H. Zawawi, Nikhillesh Vaiid, Zuhair Natto, Samar M. Adel, Maha R. Alshihri, Mohammed Alsadat, Rania Dause, Shoroog Agou, Ali H. Hassan","doi":"10.1111/ocr.12824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aim</h3>\n \n <p>This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the bone–miniscrew contact surface area (BMC) and the cortical bone microcracks (CM) resulting from manual (hand-driven) and automated (motor-driven) orthodontic miniscrew (OM) insertion methods.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Thirty-three OM were inserted in the femurs of nine New Zealand rabbits using manual (n = 16) and automated (n = 17) insertions. After euthanizing the rabbits, bone blocks, each including one OM, were sawed. Micro-CT scanning was performed, and data analysis included reconstruction, binarization and quantification of morphometric parameters of BMC and the number and length of CM. Means and standard deviations for complete BMC, complete BMC proportion, cortical BMC, cortical BMC proportion, and length and number of CM were calculated. Mixed model analysis was used to adjust for more than one sample/CM per animal. A paired <i>t</i>-test was used to compare the number of CM between the two groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Compared to the automated insertion, manually inserted miniscrews had significantly lower complete BMC (7.54 ± 1.80 mm<sup>2</sup> vs. 11.99 ± 3.64 mm<sup>2</sup>), cortical BMC (5.91 ± 1.48 mm<sup>2</sup> vs. 8.48 ± 1.90 mm<sup>2</sup>) and cortical BMC proportion (79.44 ± 5.84% vs. 87.94 ± 3.66%). However, it was not statistically significant in complete BMC proportion (<i>p</i> = .052). The automated insertion also resulted in a significantly lower mean number of CM than the manual method (<i>p</i> = .012). However, the length of the cracks was shorter in the manual group but with no significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.256).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Motor-driven OM insertion results in superior BMC and reduction in the number of CM, which may lead to better miniscrew stability.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Is motor-driven insertion of orthodontic miniscrews more advantageous than manual insertion? A micro-CT evaluation of bone miniscrew contact surface area and cortical microcracks in rabbits\",\"authors\":\"Reem A. Alansari, Khaled H. Zawawi, Nikhillesh Vaiid, Zuhair Natto, Samar M. Adel, Maha R. Alshihri, Mohammed Alsadat, Rania Dause, Shoroog Agou, Ali H. Hassan\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ocr.12824\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aim</h3>\\n \\n <p>This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the bone–miniscrew contact surface area (BMC) and the cortical bone microcracks (CM) resulting from manual (hand-driven) and automated (motor-driven) orthodontic miniscrew (OM) insertion methods.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Thirty-three OM were inserted in the femurs of nine New Zealand rabbits using manual (n = 16) and automated (n = 17) insertions. After euthanizing the rabbits, bone blocks, each including one OM, were sawed. Micro-CT scanning was performed, and data analysis included reconstruction, binarization and quantification of morphometric parameters of BMC and the number and length of CM. Means and standard deviations for complete BMC, complete BMC proportion, cortical BMC, cortical BMC proportion, and length and number of CM were calculated. Mixed model analysis was used to adjust for more than one sample/CM per animal. A paired <i>t</i>-test was used to compare the number of CM between the two groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Compared to the automated insertion, manually inserted miniscrews had significantly lower complete BMC (7.54 ± 1.80 mm<sup>2</sup> vs. 11.99 ± 3.64 mm<sup>2</sup>), cortical BMC (5.91 ± 1.48 mm<sup>2</sup> vs. 8.48 ± 1.90 mm<sup>2</sup>) and cortical BMC proportion (79.44 ± 5.84% vs. 87.94 ± 3.66%). However, it was not statistically significant in complete BMC proportion (<i>p</i> = .052). The automated insertion also resulted in a significantly lower mean number of CM than the manual method (<i>p</i> = .012). However, the length of the cracks was shorter in the manual group but with no significant difference (<i>p</i> = 0.256).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Motor-driven OM insertion results in superior BMC and reduction in the number of CM, which may lead to better miniscrew stability.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ocr.12824\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ocr.12824","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的：这项体外研究旨在评估和比较手动（手驱动）和自动（电机驱动）正畸微型螺钉（OM）插入方法所产生的骨-微型螺钉接触表面积（BMC）和皮质骨微裂缝（CM）：使用手动（16 只）和自动（17 只）插入法在 9 只新西兰兔的股骨中插入了 33 个 OM。兔子安乐死后，锯开骨块，每个骨块包括一个 OM。进行显微 CT 扫描，数据分析包括重建、二值化和量化 BMC 形态参数以及 CM 的数量和长度。计算了完整 BMC、完整 BMC 比例、皮质 BMC、皮质 BMC 比例、CM 长度和数量的均值和标准差。混合模型分析用于调整每只动物一个以上的样本/CM。采用配对 t 检验比较两组动物的 CM 数量：结果：与自动插入相比，手动插入的微型螺钉的完整 BMC（7.54 ± 1.80 mm2 vs. 11.99 ± 3.64 mm2）、皮质 BMC（5.91 ± 1.48 mm2 vs. 8.48 ± 1.90 mm2）和皮质 BMC 比例（79.44 ± 5.84% vs. 87.94 ± 3.66%）均明显较低。但在完整 BMC 比例方面，差异无统计学意义（p = .052）。自动插入的平均 CM 数也明显低于手动方法（p = .012）。然而，手动组的裂缝长度更短，但差异不显著（p = 0.256）：结论：马达驱动的 OM 插入可获得更好的 BMC 和减少 CM 的数量，从而提高微型螺钉的稳定性。
Is motor-driven insertion of orthodontic miniscrews more advantageous than manual insertion? A micro-CT evaluation of bone miniscrew contact surface area and cortical microcracks in rabbits
Aim
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the bone–miniscrew contact surface area (BMC) and the cortical bone microcracks (CM) resulting from manual (hand-driven) and automated (motor-driven) orthodontic miniscrew (OM) insertion methods.
Methods
Thirty-three OM were inserted in the femurs of nine New Zealand rabbits using manual (n = 16) and automated (n = 17) insertions. After euthanizing the rabbits, bone blocks, each including one OM, were sawed. Micro-CT scanning was performed, and data analysis included reconstruction, binarization and quantification of morphometric parameters of BMC and the number and length of CM. Means and standard deviations for complete BMC, complete BMC proportion, cortical BMC, cortical BMC proportion, and length and number of CM were calculated. Mixed model analysis was used to adjust for more than one sample/CM per animal. A paired t-test was used to compare the number of CM between the two groups.
Results
Compared to the automated insertion, manually inserted miniscrews had significantly lower complete BMC (7.54 ± 1.80 mm2 vs. 11.99 ± 3.64 mm2), cortical BMC (5.91 ± 1.48 mm2 vs. 8.48 ± 1.90 mm2) and cortical BMC proportion (79.44 ± 5.84% vs. 87.94 ± 3.66%). However, it was not statistically significant in complete BMC proportion (p = .052). The automated insertion also resulted in a significantly lower mean number of CM than the manual method (p = .012). However, the length of the cracks was shorter in the manual group but with no significant difference (p = 0.256).
Conclusion
Motor-driven OM insertion results in superior BMC and reduction in the number of CM, which may lead to better miniscrew stability.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
