IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 20, NUMBER 4 2011
Biomechanical Anchorage Evaluation of
Mini-Implants Treated With Sandblasting
and Acid Etching in Orthodontics
Jorge H. Calderón, DDS, MS,* Roberto M. Valencia, DDS,† Adán A. Casasa, DDS,‡ Mauricio A. Sánchez, PhD,§
Roberto Espinosa, DDS,储 and Israel Ceja, MS¶
tarting with Pierre Fauchard in
S 1728 until today, anchorage con-
trol is basic to achieve orthodon-
tic goals. The literature reports that
there have been several techniques and
additives designed to enhance orth-
odontic anchorage. However, these in-
traoral devices, despite all of their
qualities, can cause undesirable effects
such as protrusions, intrusions, and
bending of the supported teeth.1– 4
An article that was most relevant
to this study was written in 1990 by
Creekmore and Eklund,5 who de-
scribed the use of a rigid endosseous
implant to close the space between 2
mandibular molars 10 and 12 mm. Ac-
tually, there has been a great effort in
Europe and Asia to achieve a skeletal
or absolute anchorage through a vari-
ety of small titanium screws (mini or
micro screws), palatal implants, and
plates combined with screws.6 –18
*MD in Orthodontics, Centro de Estudios Superiores de
Ortodoncia, Mexico; Private practice in Palmira, Colombia,
South America.
†Associate Professor, Centro de Estudios Superiores de
Ortodoncia; Associate Professor, Department of Pediatric
Dentistry and Orthodontics, Universidad Tecnologica de
México, Mexico.
‡Professor and Program Director, Centro de Estudios
Superiores de Ortodoncia, Mexico.
§Affiliate Associate Professor, School of Chemical and Material
Engineering, The University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK.
储Professor, Department of Oral Rehabilitation, Health Science
and Environmental Center, Universidad de Guadalajara,
Mexico.
¶Researcher, Exact Science and Engineering Center,
Universidad de Guadalajara, Mexico.
Reprint requests and correspondence to Jorge H.
Calderón, DDS, MS, 1212 Arboretum Way, Burlington,
MA 01803, Phone: ⴙ57-317-379-8136, Fax: ⴙ1-781-
273-6603, E-mail: jorgehcalderon@hotmail.com
ISSN 1056-6163/11/02004-273
Implant Dentistry
Volume 20 • Number 4
Copyright © 2011 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
DOI: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3182167308
273
Purpose: The purpose of this
study was to assess the stability of
sandblasted and acid-etched minis-
crew implants based on orthodontic
mechanics for space closure after
tooth extraction.
Materials and Methods: Twenty-
four orthodontic mini-implants were
placed in 13 patients, for a skeletal
anchorage purpose, all prepared by
the manufacturer (3M Unitek—
IMTEC Ortho USA) with sandblasting
and acid treatment. Anchorage mea-
surements were made on occlusal ra-
diographs, on a monthly basis in a
6-month period.
Results: All the mini-implants
were effective for the clinical trial; but
65% of the mini-implants, after been
Stability of Mini-Implants
Regarding endosseous implants,
Roberts, Nelson, and Block report that
these have been designed to meet rigid
or absolute anchorage.19,20 These im-
plants are integrated into the surround-
ing bone and must remain absolutely
secure to receive orthodontic loading
forces.21–25
Liou et al questioned the stability
of temporary anchorage devices
(TADs) once loaded with forces. They
believe that although mini-implants
are a stable anchorage mechanism,
they do not remain immobile during
orthodontic treatment; and that al-
though radiological and clinical mea-
surements of this phenomenon are
limited, the latent risk is really the
loaded, showed up to 1 degree, or less,
of displacement, while 35% showed
ⱖ2 degrees shift. The mandible mini-
implants resulted in a smaller amount
of displacement than the ones located
in the maxilla. The ones located at the
anterior maxilla displaced less than
the posterior. The best results were
obtained with the 8-mm mini-implants,
followed by the 6-mm and 10-mm
mini-implants.
Conclusions: Modifying the mini-
implant surface with sandblasting and
acid treatment offers good bone an-
choring for orthodontic purposes.
(Implant Dent 2011;20:273–279)
Key Words: mini-implant, anchor-
age, sandblasting, biocompatibility
damage they may induce to the adja-
cent tooth roots.26
So the questions that have arisen
as to its use have focused on whether
mini-implants really provide an ab-
solute anchorage and whether the
displacement affects its anchorage as
reported in some studies.20 –26
Factors That Affect
Mini-Implants Success
In the conventional prosthetic
uses of dental implants, mobility is
taken into account as a sign of failure
due to lack of osseointegration. The
authors believe that in the case of
mini-implants for orthodontic anchor-
age, a small amount of mobility in
TADs when loaded with orthodontic
274 SANDBLASTING AND ACID ETCHING IN ORTHODONTICS • CALDERÓN
forces (⬍200 g) is permissible in ful-
filling the role as an anchor.27–29
Osseointegration
Osseointegration is a biologic
phenomenon that occurs in implantol-
ogy and deserves special analysis be-
cause of its direct relationship with
stability. Slaets et al30 describe that the
space between the implant and the
bone is filled with blood, forming a
hematoma where proteins, lipids, and
other biomolecules attached to the
metal surface are reabsorbed by the
body itself and a week after osteoblas-
tic and osteoclastic activities occur.
Berglundh et al consider that the
necrotic bone and hematoma are quickly
replaced by a growing fibrous bone,
Fig. 1. Periapical radiograph example for di-
agnostic purpose. being responsible for the primary
stability. Over the next 4 to 6 weeks,
this bone structure is remodeled (a
Fig. 2. SEM images. Left column, temporary anchorage devices (TAD) without sandblasted,
acid etched (SLA) treatment. Right column, TAD with SLA treatment with 25⫻, 100⫻, and
1000⫻ magnification, respectively.
ET AL
critical step in implant retention). Sub-
sequently, bone is differentiated with
new osteoblasts to form fibers and la-
mellar bone around the implant, reach-
ing a secondary stability.31
This process depends on the ma-
terial of which the implant is made and
the surface structure treatment to pro-
vide smoothness or roughness on it.32
Titanium has an outer layer of oxide
surface in which nonfibrillar and
amorphous areas of glycoproteins and
proteoglycans can be attached. This
provides points for osteoblasts, os-
teoid, and bone matrix mineralization
concluding with the deposition of min-
eralized bone matrix on the implant
surface. In addition, new bone grows
into the implant surface and spreads to
the surrounding bone reaching its peak
between 3 and 6 weeks after implant
insertion. The authors pointed out that
with mini-implants this process has
not been examined in detail, but it may
occur in a similar manner.
A study by Chung et al shows that
although the retention source of mini-
implants is from a mechanical lock, their
stability depends on the quality and
quantity supporting cortical and alveolar
bone. They also mention that the main
characteristic of the mini-implants used
in their study is the absolute orthodontic
anchorage based on the sandblasting
and acid etching–treated surface to im-
prove osseointegration.33
It is very important to have in
mind the physical qualities of a minis-
crew system and their role in the clin-
ical behavior. A comparison between
current orthodontic miniscrews sys-
tems was described by Lin et al34
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The study sample included 13 in-
dividuals with space closure require-
ments. All were active patients at the
Center for Advanced Studies in Ortho-
dontics, Mexico DF, during the period
of 2009. Twenty-four TAD units (3M
Unitek—IMTEC Ortho, USA) were
clinically placed, in 7 female and 6
male patients.
Before the study, detailed proce-
dures were developed, and inclusion
criteria were established, such as vol-
untarily patient’s acceptance, no sys-
temic compromise, space closure
 IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 20, NUMBER 4 2011 275

requirement, patient with leveling and

alignment completed phase, and pa-
tients without infectious foci in the
oral cavity and optimal oral hygiene.
Preoperative periapical x-rays
were evaluated to assess the anatomi-
cal structures, bone density, and root
proximity (Fig 1).
All the 3M Unitek—IMTEC Or-
tho sandblasting and acid etching–
treated surface mini-implants were
Fig. 3. Mini-implant loading. provided exclusively for this research
by the same manufacture (Fig. 2).
The implant lengths were used ac-
cording to anatomical criteria (6, 8,
and 10 mm): 8-mm and 10-mm im-
plants for the upper jaw and 6-mm
implants for the mandible. A periapi-
cal radiograph was taken to verify the
mini-implant’s correct location, and a
unique dose of Ibuprofen (800 mg)
was prescribed only in the presence of
pain after the procedure.
Postoperative instructions were
given to the patient, with especial care
regarding oral hygiene in the surgical
implant location. In addition, a 0.12%
chlorhexidine mouthwash was pre-
scribed once a day after brushing.
Fig. 4. Symetroscope Template angular measurements above the occlusal radiograph. Each patient had a weekly clinical
checkup, and by the fourth week, a
TAD radiograph control was taken. At
the same time, the mini-implant was
loaded up to 150g force with a nickel
titanium closed coil spring (Fig. 3).
The procedures and timeline of
the investigation were the same for
each case; Occlusal Kodak Ultraspeed
radiographs were taken using Corix 70
Plus equipment and 16-in cone head.
The radiographic standardization was
conducted as follows: all the radio-
graphs were previously marked at the
middle, to make it coincide with
the facial midline. The angulation of
the cone for the upper jaw was 65 de-
grees in relation to the occlusal plane;
the lower jaw cone angulation was taken
at 0 degree achieving the beam position
in a perpendicular direction to the plate.
The exposure time was 1.6 seconds as
specified by the manufacturer and then
automatic processed. The radiographs
were taken with an interval of 30-day
period to reach a total of 6.
Fig. 5. Two cone beam computed tomography images of TAD images of the same patient 4 Angular measurements were made
months apart, in space closure treatment for orthodontic purpose. on occlusal radiographs by positioning
on it a Symetroscope millimeter grid
276 SANDBLASTING AND ACID ETCHING
Fig. 6. A, Main angulation change effect of mini-implants from the installation time (start) and
second measurement for the sex, length, and implant position. B, Main angulation change
effect of mini-implants from the installation time (start) and subsequent measurement for sex,
length, and implant position.
(Jhon’s Dental Laboratories, USA;
1983), and locating in symmetrical po-
sition anatomical structures as the me-
dian palatine suture and nasal spine for
the upper Jaw and the geni apophysis in
the mandible. All the images were stan-
dardized and cropped and uprighted to
the 7 ⫻ 9-cm grid (Fig. 4). The radio-
graphs were digitally photographed
before and after to be printed, using
Photoshop, in a uniform way. The
images of anatomical structures were
superimposed with a plane line at the
middle palatal suture to match each
other, and another line was traced
through the long center axis of the im-
plant. The resulting angle differences
between the two were taken as the im-
plant stability variation.
IN ORTHODONTICS • CALDERÓN
To assess the accuracy of the
method, cone beam computed tomog-
raphy was used versus radiograph
technique measure, to quantify the an-
gular TAD variation on a 4-month in-
terval (Fig. 5). The amount of dis-
placement error was ⬍1 degree
between the two, with a minimum dif-
ference between the 2 techniques.
RESULTS
Twenty-four orthodontic mini-
implants were placed in the total sample
group of 13 patients and evaluated dur-
ing a 6 month-period. It is important to
mention that 1 case with 4 mini-
implants was excluded from the total
sample population on the stabilization
ET AL
period because of herpetic gingivos-
tomatitis (herpes simplex type I). The
patient showed signs and symptoms
characterized by fever, lymphade-
nopathy, headache, malaise, intense
gingival erythema, and oral vesicles
throughout mouth that led to the loss
of the 4 implants.
All the mini-implants were effec-
tive for the clinical trial; however,
65% of the mini-implants after been
loaded over a 6-month period, showed up
to ⱕ1 degree of angular displacement,
while 35% showed ⱖ2 degrees shift.
The mandible mini-implants re-
sulted within a smaller amount of angu-
lar displacement than the ones
located at the maxilla. The total mini-
implants located at the mandible were in
the posterior area; 60% of the cases did
not show any rotation, while 40% show
up to ⱕ1 degree. The mini-implants
placed at the anterior maxilla region dis-
placed angularly less than the ones at the
posterior. The ones located at the ante-
rior maxilla region 13.3% had an angu-
lar displacement up to 1 degree, and
6.7% of these were ⬎2 degrees. Of the
mini-implants placed at maxillary pos-
terior region, 20% showed ⱕ1 degree
rotation, 13.3% up to 2 degrees, and
26.7% ⬎2 degrees (Tables 1 and 2).
The best results were obtained
with the 8-mm mini-implants size, fol-
lowed by the 6-mm and 10-mm mini-
implants; this is simply due to the
slenderness effect, thus the danger of
misalignment is reduced.
From a nonparametric statistical
test (analysis of variance) results, it
can be concluded that the measured
variables did not show significant dif-
ferences in angle changes from the
first “start” measurement to the last
one. However, the noise/error is sig-
nificantly higher compared with the
variation values (maybe due to the
sample size, Fig. 6).
The analysis of variance results in
Tables 2 and 3 conclude that the length
of the mini-implant is statistically signif-
icant in its standard deviation (variation)
as a factor of affectation. Although there
are differences between the variables for
all groups of TADs, they remain very
stable with no marked changes in terms
of degrees of tilt, when orthodontic
power loads are placed to the mini-
 IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 20, NUMBER 4 2011 277

Table 1. Angular Measurement and Statistics for Implant Motion in the Posterior that implant osseointegration failure pos-
Zone of the Maxillary Arch sibility is due to microtrauma. It is consid-
ered useful to give this period of time
Patient
(healing) to suppress mild pain and pres-
Measurement A B C D E F sure on adjacent teeth reported by patients.
An anchorage system is compro-
Start 61 51 67 67 69.5 55
mised when systemic disease is in-
Progress 1 56 50 72 72 63 60
Progress 2 60 53 75 75 66
volved.27 One of the patients of this
Progress 3 70 70 study who received 4 TADs lost them
Average 59.00 51.33 71.00 71.00 66.17 57.50 in the first 4 weeks of healing because
SD 2.65 1.53 3.37 3.37 3.25 3.54 of signs and symptoms consistent with
Minimum 56.00 50.00 67.00 67.00 63.00 55.00 herpetic gingivostomatitis, with multiple
Maximum 61.00 53.00 75.00 75.00 69.50 60.00 ulcerations in the mouth, leading to fail-
ure because of an increased mobility. It
Table 2. Analysis of Variance for Change From “Start” is not possible to control a viral incubat-
ing process, but we have to be sure that
Source DF SS MS Var Comp Total SD
the failure is not due to the mini-implant
Sex 1 34.1020 34.1020 0.00 0.00 0.00 but the systemic condition of the patient.
Length 3 170.0844 56.6948 2.534 32.00 1.592 The mini-implant removal has
Position 6 62.3434 10.3906 0.519 6.55 0.720 been evaluated in animal and human
Error 109 530.6181 4.8681 4.868 61.46 2.206 models. Findings indicated no difficul-
Total 119 797.1479 7.921 2.814
ties on the removal, no matter bone in-
DF, degrees of freedom from each source; SS, sum of squares; MS, mean squares; Var Comp, variance components; SD, standard deviation.
tegration. Studies showed mini-implants
osseointegration when analyzed micro-
Table 3. Analysis of Variance From “Start” Versus Sex, Length, and Position scopically regardless of immediate or
Source DF SS MS Var Comp Total SD delayed loading. Furthermore, all TADs
Sex 1 4.3566 4.3566 0.054 0.71 0.233 could be easily removed.44 A study by
Length 3 5.8799 1.9600 0.044 0.58 0.209 Seong et al45 found a 100% success rate
Position 6 5.6212 0.9369 ⫺0.617 0.00 0.000 for implants placed without loading and
Error 109 818.5903 7.5100 7.510 98.71 2.740 any fractures or distortion after removal
Total 119 834.4479 7.608 2.758 but requiring higher removal torque at
DF, degrees of freedom from each source; SS, sum of squares; MS, mean squares; Var Comp, variance components; SD, standard deviation. the end of the treatment. Therefore, to
prevent complications they suggested
implants. The mini-implants were re- Permanency is not an expected leaving them without any load for no
moved at the end of the orthodontic property on mini-implants whose role more than 6 months.
mechanical movements to be examined is temporary but provides a strong ba- The debate over whether fibroin-
by SEM (Fig. 7). sis enabling them to achieve the ther- tegration and osseointegration occurs
Bone fragments were found em- apeutic goals.36 In this order of ideas, a is still open, and the authors believe
bedded in the treated surface, creating follow-up question is whether it is further histological studies must be
new bone fibers and lamellar bone possible to use implants as orthodontic done to define this feature.
around the implant, with secondary sta- anchorage, by doing surface treatment This study demonstrated that
bility. To compare the treated and non- to improve bone integration, with a sandblasting and acid etching the
treated surfaces, SEM mini-implant lower risk of failure under dynamic surface of a mini-implant makes an
study photograph was done by Ferrer et loading and achieving greater stabil- interesting alternative in absolute
al. This unpublished work, done for a ity. Literature reports that sandblasting but temporary anchorage. 45 Simi-
Master Degree Thesis (2009),35 (as seen and acid etching an implant provides a larly, conclusion shared with authors
in Fig. 8) shows that this secondary an- structure surface that allows it to inte- such as Chung et al.33 Based on tis-
chorage can be thought as a “maximum,” grate more efficiently.37– 42 sue reaction, implant mobility, or
which can be added to the mechanical Another major controversy arises angular displacement, there was
anchorage given by the screw threads. from the pursuit of stability in mini- also an effortless removal of TADs
implants and immediate or delayed by requiring just a little more torque
DISCUSSION loading. Raghavendra et al stated that than the ones without surface
Since 1983, mini-implants have there is a period of healing in prosthetic treatment.
been one of the most efficient anchor- implants critical to its success, and in Their anchorage efficiency in space
ing devices for orthodontics.5–11 The this period, the mechanical stability is closure after extraction was excellent
actual risk for angular displacement replaced by a biological stability. Their with an average rate of 1 mm/mo. It
could be the root implant contact to results concluded that the healing time would be useful information to search in
the adjacent root teeth.26 for an implant is 4 weeks43 and suggest further clinical investigation the effec-
278 SANDBLASTING AND ACID ETCHING
Fig. 7. SEM images at various magnifications where it can be observed bone adhered to the
sandblasted, acid etched implant surface.
Fig. 8. Aarhus mini-implants SEM images from Ferrer et al study showing no bone adhered in
diverse magnifications.
tiveness differences between the upper
and lower jaw.
CONCLUSIONS
Modifying the structure of the im-
plant surface chemically or physically
offers an effective means to enhance os-
seointegration for orthodontic purposes.
All the mini-implants remained
stable with no marked dramatic
changes in terms of degrees of tilt.
They remained firm when orthodon-
tic power loads were placed.
IN ORTHODONTICS • CALDERÓN
There is no need to apply high lev-
els of torque to remove surface-treated
mini-implants. However, the review of
the literature and scientific evidence
suggests that a nonloading period of ⬍6
months before removal is recommended
to prevent complications.
Disclosure
The authors claim to have no fi-
nancial interest in any company or any
of the products mentioned in this article.
ET AL
REFERENCES
1. Braun S, Sjursen RC Jr, Legan HL.
On the management of extraction sites.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;
112:645-655.
2. Daskalogiannakis J. Glossary of
Orthodontic Terms. Berlin: Quintessence
Publishing Co, Inc; 2000:7.
3. Echarri P, Kim TW, Favero L. Ortod-
oncia y Microimplantes Técnica Completa
Paso a Paso. Editorial Ripano SA, DL
2007:13.
4. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Ackerman JL,
et al. Contemporary Orthodontics. St
Louis, MO: Mosby; 2008:343-347.
5. Creekmore TD, Eklund MK. The
possibility of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Or-
thod. 1983;4:266-269.
6. Roberts WE, Nelson CL, Goodacre
CJ. Rigid implant anchorage to close a
mandibular first molar extraction site. J Clin
Orthod. 1994;28:693-704.
7. Higuchi KW, Slack JM. The use of
titanium fixtures for intraoral anchorage to
facilitate orthodontic tooth movement. Int
J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 1991;6:338-
344.
8. Douglass JB, Killiany DM. Dental im-
plants used as orthodontic anchorage.
J Oral Implantol. 1987;38:28-38.
9. Gray JB, Steen ME, King GJ, et al.
Studies on the efficacy of implants as orth-
odontic anchorage. Am J Orthod. 1983;
83:311-317.
10. Haanaes HR, Stenvik A, Beyer-
Olsen ES, et al. The efficacy of two-stage
titanium implants as orthodontic anchor-
age in the preprosthodontic correction of
third molars in adults—A report of three
cases. Eur J Orthod. 1991;13:287-292.
11. Odman J, Lekholm U, Jemt T, et al.
A clinical and radiographic study in grow-
ing pigs. Eur J Orthod. 1988;13:279-286.
12. Jong SL, Jung KK, Young C, et al.
Applications of Orthodontic Miniim-
plants. New Malden, Surrey, UK: Quin-
tessence Publishing Co, Inc; 2007:1-2.
13. Deguchi T, Takano Y, Kanomi R, et
al. The use of small titanium screws for
orthodontic anchorage. J Dent Res. 2003;
82:377-381.
14. Gray S. Transitional implants for
orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod.
2000;11:659-666.
15. Melsen B, Verna C. Miniscrew
implants: The Aarhus anchorage system.
Semin Orthod. 2005;11:24-31.
16. Herman R, Cope JB. Miniscrew
implants: IMTEC mini ortho implants. Se-
min Orthod. 2005;11:32-39.
17. Crismani AG, Bernhart T, Bantleon
HP, et al. Palatal implants: The Straumann
Orthosystem. Semin Orthod. 2005;11:
16-23.

18. Maino BG, Mura P, Bednar J.
Miniscrew implants: The spiderscrew an-
chorage system. Semin Orthod. 2005;11:
40-46.
19. Roberts WE, Smith RK, Zilberman
Y, et al. Osseous adaptation to continuous
loading of rigid endosseous implants.
Am J Orthod. 1984;86:95-111.
20. Block MS, Hoffman DR. A new de-
vice for absolute anchorage for orthodon-
tics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
1995;107:251-258.
21. Chen J, Esterle M, Roberts WE.
Mechanical response to functional loading
around the threads of retromolar endosse-
ous implants utilized for orthodontic
anchorage: Coordinated histomorphomet-
ric and finite element analysis. Int J Oral
Maxillofac Implant. 1999;14:282-289.
22. De Pauw GA, Dermaut LR, Jo-
hansson CB, et al. A histomorphometric
analysis of heavily loaded and non-loaded
implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implant.
2002;17:405-412.
23. Costa A, Raffainl M, Melsen B.
Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: A
preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Or-
thognath Surg. 1998;13:201-209.
24. Melsen B, Verna C. A rational ap-
proach to orthodontic anchorage. Prog
Orthod. 1999;1:10-22.
25. Costa A, Dalstra M, Melsen B.
L’Aarthus anchorage system. Ortognat-
odonzia Italiana. 2000;9:487-496.
26. Liou E, Pai B, Lin J. Do miniscrews
remain stationary under orthodontic
forces? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2004;126:42-47.
27. Park HS, Jeong SH, Kwonc OW.
Factors affecting the clinical success of
screw implants used as orthodontic an-
chorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.
2006;130:18-25.
IMPLANT DENTISTRY / VOLUME 20, NUMBER 4 2011
28. Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M, et
al. Factors associated with the stability of
titanium screws placed in the posterior
region for orthodontic anchorage.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;
124:373-378.
29. Cheng SJ, Tseng IY, Lee JJ, et al. A
prospective study of the risk factors asso-
ciated with failure of mini-implants used for
orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillo-
fac Implants. 2004;419:100-106.
30. Slaets E, Carmelier G, Naert I, et al.
Early cellular responses in cortical bone
healing around unloaded titanium
implants: An animal study. J Periodontol.
2006;77:1015-1024.
31. Berglundh T, Abrahamsson I, Al-
bouy JP, et al. Bone healing at implants
with a fluoride-modified surface: An exper-
imental study in dogs. Clin Oral Implants
Res. 2007;18:147-152.
32. Albrektsson T, Hansson H,
Kasemo B, et al. The interface of inorganic
implants in vivo; titanium implants in bone.
Ann Biomed Eng. 1983;11:1-27.
33. Chung KR, Kim SH, Kook YA. The
C-orthodontic micro-implant. J Clin Or-
thod. 2004;38:478-486.
34. Lin JC, Liou EJ, Yeh CL, et al. A
comparative evaluation of current orth-
odontic miniscrew systems. World J Or-
thod. 2007;8:136-144.
35. Ferrer MA, Valencia R, Casasa A,
et al. Evaluación de la efectividad de 90
mini-implantes empleados en tres mecáni-
cas ortodoncicas, en pacientes atendidos
en el Centro de Estudios Superiores de
Ortodoncia, período 2008-2009. Tesis de
Maestría en Ortodoncia y Ortopedia Max-
ilofacial México D.F. Agosto 2009.
36. Chung KR, Nelson G, Kim SH, et
al. Severe bidentoalveolar protrusion
treated with orthodontic microimplant-
279
dependent en-masse retraction. Am J Or-
thod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;1:105-115.
37. Brånemark PI. Osseointegration
and its experimental background. J Pros-
thet Dent. 1983;50:399-410.
38. Carlsson L, Röstlund T, Albrek-
tsson B, et al. Osseointegration of titanium
implants. Acta Orthop Scand. 1986;57:
285-289.
39. Oyonarte R, Pilliar RM, Deporter D,
et al. Peri-implant bone response to orth-
odontic loading: Part 1. A histomorpho-
metric study of the effects of implant
surface design. Am J Orhtod Dentofacial
Orthop. 2005;128:173-181.
40. Oyonarte R, Pilliar RM, Deporter D,
et al. Peri-implant bone response to orth-
odontic loading: Part 2. Implant surface
geometry and its effect on regional bone
remodeling. Am J Orhtod Dentofacial Or-
thop. 2005;128:182-189.
41. Conforto E, Caillard D, Aronsson
BO, et al. Electron microscopy on titanium
implants for bone replacement after “SLA”
surface treatment. Eur Cell Mater. 2002;3:
9-10.
42. Marihno C. Sandblasted and acid-
etched dental implants: A histologic study
in rats. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;
18:75-81.
43. Raghavendra S, Wood MC, Taylor
TD. Early wound healing around endosse-
ous implants: A review of the literature. Int
J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2005;20:425-
431.
44. Vande Vannet B, Sabzevar MM,
Wehrbein H, et al. Osseointegration of
miniscrews: A histomorphometric evalua-
tion. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:437-442.
45. Kim SH, Cho JH, Chung KR, et al.
Removal torque values of surface-treated
mini-implants after loading. Am J Orhtod
Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:36-43.