Original Article

Finite element analysis of stress and displacement around

mini‑implant using different insertion angles and various
direction of orthodontic force in maxilla and mandible
Vadivel Kumar Marimuthu1, Kishore Kumar2, Nagarajan Sadhasivam3, Raja Arasappan4, Aruna Jayamurugan3,
Ranganathan Rathinasamy5

Abstract
Objective: To determine the biomechanical effects of implant insertion angle and direction of orthodontic force on maxilla and mandible by
finite element approach and factorial analysis. Materials and Methods: A three‑dimensional finite element bone block models of maxilla
and mandible with type D3 and D2 bone quality were constructed. Mini‑implants were inserted at 30°, 60°, and 90° and orthodontic force
was applied to the center of the mini‑implant head at 60°, 90°, and 120° angulation. ANSYS software was used to evaluate the stress on
implant, stress on bone and displacement of bone. Results: Maximum von Mises stress was observed at 30° insertion angle. The stress
on implant, stress on bone and displacement of bone increased as the insertion angle decreased from 90° to 30° and was statistically
significant in both maxilla and mandible. The direction of orthodontic force had no statistically significant effect on stress and displacement
around mini‑implant in both maxilla and mandible. The stress on bone and displacement of bone was greater in maxilla compared to that
of mandible and was statistically significant. Conclusion: Placement of mini‑implant perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth reduces
the stress concentration around the mini‑implant and its interface, thereby increasing the likelihood of implant stability. The direction of
orthodontic force has no significant effect on implant stability.

Key words: Finite element method, implant stability, mini‑implant, stress on implant

Introduction recent years because of its ability to provide absolute anchorage,

Anchorage control is an important factor for the success of
orthodontic treatment. Conventional dental anchorages might be
neither sufficient nor effective in providing absolute anchorage.
Extra oral appliances like headgear requires patient cooperation
and anchorage loss is often observed despite the use of this
appliance.[1,2] Though intraoral appliance like trans palatal arch,
lingual arch, nance holding arch, lip bumper does not require
patient compliance, the disadvantage of these appliances is
that it does not provide absolute anchorage in all three planes.
Temporary anchorage devices have attracted great attention in
versatility, minimal surgical invasiveness, low cost, and the fact
that they can be immediately loaded after surgery.[2,3] The success
rates of orthodontic mini‑implants have been reported differently
because of several factors affecting their success rates.[4‑6]
Research studies have investigated biomechanical factors such
as site of implantation,[2] orthodontic force level,[7] length and
diameter of mini‑implant,[8‑10] cortical bone thickness,[2] and root
proximity[4] that might be related to the failure of mini‑implants.
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 3.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build
upon the work non‑commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed
under the identical terms.

Access this article online

For reprints contact: reprints@medknow.com
Quick Response Code
Website:
www.jios.in
How to cite this article: Marimuthu VK, Kumar K, Sadhasivam N,
Arasappan R, Jayamurugan A, Rathinasamy R. Finite element analysis
DOI: of stress and displacement around mini-implant using different insertion
10.4103/0301-5742.162235 angles and various direction of orthodontic force in maxilla and mandible.
J Indian Orthod Soc 2015;49:61-6.

1
Professor and Head, 2Former PG Student, 3Reader, 4Professor, 5Senior Lecturer
Department of Orthodontics, Vinayaka Missions Sankarachariyar Dental College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, India
1,2,3,4,5

Address for correspondence: Dr. Nagarajan Sadhasivam, Department of Orthodontics, Vinayaka Missions Sankarachariyar Dental College, No. 47, Sankari Main
Road, Salem ‑ 636 308, Tamil Nadu, India. E‑mail: naga.dentist@gmail.com

Received: 21‑03‑2015, Accepted with Revision: 19‑05‑2015

© 2015 Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 61

 Marimuthu, et al.: FEM analysis on mini-implant

The proper angle of insertion of mini‑implant is important

for cortical anchorage and various studies have shown
perpendicular implant placement to the long axis of tooth
offers more stability to the orthodontic loading.[11‑15] Liu et al.[2]
suggested an oblique loading direction reduces stress on
mini‑implant compared to the perpendicular direction of force.
Lin et al.[16] suggested that the direction of orthodontic force
had no significant effect on cortical bone stress.
It is virtually impossible to measure stress accurately around
mini‑implant in vivo. A three‑dimensional finite element
analysis provides useful information on stress distribution in
the maxillofacial region when the mini‑implants are loaded
using simulated models. The complexity of the mechanical
characterization of bone and its interaction with mini‑implant
systems have forced researchers to make major simplifications
Figure 1: AbsoAnchor mini-implant
and assumptions to make the modeling and solving process
easier.
The thickness of cortical bone varies between both arches. The
A key to the success or failure of mini‑implant is the manner in thickness of cortical bone is considered to be 1 mm in maxilla
which stresses are transferred to the surrounding bone. Hence, and 2 mm in mandible surrounding the inner trabecular bone.[12]
in this study, we intend to evaluate the stress distribution around
mini‑implant and displacement of cortical bone through finite Finite element method analytical method
element analysis using different insertion angles of implant Total of six finite element bone block models, three each for maxilla
and various direction of orthodontic force in both maxilla and mandible with specific dimensions are constructed from the
and mandible. computed tomography scan. CAD designing Pro‑Engineer
software (Version 12, Versetia Technologies, ANSYS Inc,
Aims and objectives Canonsburg, USA) was used for model construction to simulate
• To determine and compare the stress distribution on the mini‑implant inserted into the bone at various insertion
mini‑implant and alveolar bone during retraction of angles 30°, 60°, and 90° to the long axis of tooth. Both bone and
anterior teeth using different insertion angles in maxilla mini‑implant were homogeneous, isotropic, and linear elastic.
and mandible
The ANSYS software (Versetia Technologies, ANSYS work
• To determine and compare the stress distribution on
bench 12, ANSYS, Inc., Southpointe, 2600 ANSYS Drive,
mini‑implant and alveolar bone during retraction of
Canonsburg, PA 15317, USA) was exported over constructed
anterior teeth using various direction of orthodontic force
three‑dimensional models. The models were meshed with
in maxilla and mandible
4‑nodes tetrahedral solid elements and the mechanical
• To investigate the displacement of bone during retraction
properties of each material such as bone and mini‑implant were
of anterior teeth using different insertion angles and loaded from the previously published values.[12]
various direction of orthodontic force in maxilla and
mandible. For loading condition, a orthodontic force magnitude of 200
g was applied over the head of the mini‑implant inserted at
30°, 60°, and 90° to the long axis of tooth, and the orthodontic
Materials and Methods force was applied from three different angles 60°, 90°, and
A cylindrical small head type mini‑implant (SH 1312‑08, 120° for retraction of anterior teeth [Figure 3]. Maximum
AbsoAnchor, Dentos, Korea) was used in this study [Figure 1]. von Mises stress distribution was analyzed using ANSYS
The dimension of mini‑implant was 1.3 mm diameter, 8 mm software on mini‑implant and cortical bone on maxillary and
length, 60° thread angle and 0.5 mm thread pitch as prescribed mandibular models and compared. On the other hand, the
by the manufacturer. maximum displacement of cortical bone was analyzed by
applying same factors and compared on both maxillary and
A three‑dimensional finite element bone block model integrated mandibular models [Figure 4].
with a mini‑implant was constructed with a computer‑aided
design program to stimulate an orthodontic anchorage unit.
A 8 mm × 14 mm × 10 mm (height × width × depth) bone Results
block model was prepared with cortical and cancellous bone. The statistical analysis was performed by Statistical Package
It represents the interradicular space between the first molar for Social Science (SPSS, (version 22, SPSS Inc, IBM, India.)
and the second premolar of maxilla and mandible where version 11.5. Descriptive statistics of mean and standard
mini‑implants were inserted at 3 different angles [Figure 2]. deviation for the distribution of stress on implant, stress on

62 Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society | Vol 49 | Issue 2 | Apr-Jun 2015

 Marimuthu, et al.: FEM analysis on mini-implant

bone and displacement of bone for various implant insertion
angles and orthodontic force angles separately were calculated.
One‑way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed
to compare each implant insertion angle with all the three
a maximum von Mises stress on implant, maximum stress on
b direction of orthodontic force in maxilla
Figure 2: Bone block with implant inserted at 30°, 60°, and 90° in maxilla
(a) and mandible (b)
orthodontic force angles in both maxilla and mandible.
Similarly, each orthodontic force angle was compared with
all the three implant insertion angles. Inferential analysis
of Student’s t‑test was performed to compare the stress on
implant, stress on bone and displacement on bone between
maxilla and mandible.
Calculation of maximum von Mises stress on implant,
stress on bone and displacement of bone for various
insertion angles in maxilla
The ANOVA test performed to calculate the stress and
displacement for various insertion angles indicates that the
bone and maximum displacement of bone decreases as the
insertion angle increases from 30° to 90°and was statistically
significant [Table 1].
Calculation of maximum von Mises stress on implant,
stress on bone and displacement of bone for various
In maxilla, various orthodontic force angles affecting the
stress on implant, stress on bone and displacement of bone
was not statistically significant. Maximum stress on implant
and maximum stress on bone was observed in 90° orthodontic
force angle with a mean value of 10.50 MPa and 5.04 MPa,
respectively. Displacement of bone observed was more in
60° orthodontic force angle with a mean value of 3.17 MPa
[Table 2].
Calculation of maximum von Mises stress on implant,
stress on bone and displacement of bone for various
insertion angles in mandible
The results shows it is clear that the maximum von Mises
stress on implant, maximum stress on bone and maximum
displacement of bone decreases as the insertion angle increases
from 30° to 90° and it was statistically significant [Table 1].

Table 1: Calculation of maximum von Mises stress on

Figure 3: Implant inserted at 30°, 60°, and 90° and orthodontic force implant, stress on bone and displacement of bone for
applied at 60°, 90°, and 120°angulation various insertion angles in maxilla and mandible
Implant n Maxilla Mandible
insertion angle
Mean SD Mean SD
Stress on implant 30 3 12.28 1.87 9.62 0.89
(in MPa) 60 3 10.09 1.39 8.30 0.19
90 3 6.04 0.53 6.98 0.47
Total 9 9.47 2.99 8.30 1.25
Stress on bone 30 3 5.90 0.21 3.42 0.36
(in MPa) 60 3 5.65 0.34 3.43 0.19
90 3 2.97 0.13 2.54 0.14
Total 9 4.84 1.42 3.13 0.49
Displacement of 30 3 3.43 0.31 2.73 0.25
bone (µm) 60 3 3.25 0.23 2.57 0.15
90 3 2.52 0.05 2.13 0.03
Total 9 3.07 0.46 2.48 0.31
Figure 4: Stress on implant, bone and displacement of bone SD: Standard deviation

Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society | Vol 49 | Issue 2 | Apr-Jun 2015 63

 Marimuthu, et al.: FEM analysis on mini-implant

Calculation of maximum von Mises stress on implant, In 60° implant insertion angle, the maximum stress on implant
stress on bone and displacement of bone for various (11.0 MPa) and maximum displacement of bone (3.50 µm)
direction of orthodontic force in mandible were observed with an orthodontic force of 60° whereas the
In mandible, the ANOVA test showed the stress and maximum stress on bone (6.04 MPa) was observed with an
orthodontic force value of 90°.
displacement values for various orthodontic force angles were
not statistically significant. Maximum von Mises stress on In 90° implant insertion angle, the maximum stress on implant
implant and bone was observed in 90° orthodontic force angle (6.64 MPa) was observed with an orthodontic force of 90°,
with a mean value of 8.74 MPa and 3.27 MPa, respectively. the maximum stress on bone (2.85 MPa) was observed with
Similarly, displacement of bone observed was more in 90° an orthodontic force of 60°, and the maximum displacement
orthodontic force angle with a mean value of 2.51 MPa of bone (2.48 µm) was observed with an orthodontic force
[Table 2]. of 120°.
Comparison of stress on implant, stress on bone and Comparison of stress on implant, stress on bone
displacement of bone using different insertion angles and and displacement of bone using different insertion
various orthodontic force angles in maxilla angles and various orthodontic force angles in mandible
During implant insertion at 30o angle, the maximum stress on In mandible, 30° implant insertion angle, the maximum stress
implant (14.07 MPa), maximum stress on bone (6.13 MPa), on implant (10.63 MPa), maximum stress on bone (3.79 MPa)
and maximum displacement of bone (3.70 µm) were observed and maximum displacement of bone (3.0 µm) was observed
with an orthodontic force angle of 90° [Table 3]. with an orthodontic force angle of 90° [Table 3].
In 60° implant insertion angle, the maximum stress on
Table 2: Calculation of maximum von Mises stress on implant (8.43 MPa) and maximum stress on bone (3.56 µm)
implant, stress on bone and displacement of bone for various were observed with an orthodontic force of 90° whereas the
direction of orthodontic force in maxilla and mandible maximum displacement of bone (2.67 µm) was observed with
an orthodontic force value of 60°.
Orthodontic n Maxilla Mandible
force angle
Mean SD Mean SD In 90° implant insertion angle, the maximum stress on implant
Stress on implant 60 3 9.00 2.92 8.23 0.82
(7.34 MPa) and maximum displacement of bone (2.15 µm)
(in MPa) 90 3 10.50 3.72 8.74 1.76
were observed with an orthodontic force of 60°. Maximum
120 3 8.92 3.33 7.93 1.42 stress on bone (2.70 MPa) was observed with an orthodontic
Total 9 9.47 2.99 8.30 1.25 force of 120°.
Stress on bone 60 3 4.65 1.57 3.01 0.53 Comparison of stress on implant, stress on bone and
(in MPa) 90 3 5.04 1.81 3.27 0.71
displacement of bone between maxilla and mandible
120 3 4.83 1.50 3.11 0.37
Inferential analysis of Student’s t‑test showed statistically
Total 9 4.84 1.42 3.13 0.49
Displacement of 60 3 3.17 0.57 2.44 0.27
significant results for the stress and displacement of bone
bone (µm) between maxilla and mandible [Table 4]. Maximum von
90 3 3.11 0.56 2.51 0.45 Mises stress on bone was more in maxilla (4.84 MPa) than
120 3 2.93 0.39 2.48 0.33 in mandible. Similarly, the displacement of bone was more in
Total 9 3.07 0.46 2.48 0.31 maxilla (3.07 MPa) than in mandible. Stress on implant values
SD: Standard deviation was not statistically significant in maxilla and mandible.

Table 3: Comparison of stress on implant, stress on bone and displacement of bone using different insertion angles and
various orthodontic force angles in maxilla and mandible
Implant Orthodontic Maxilla Mandible
insertion angle force angle
Stress on Stress on Displacement Stress on Stress on Displacement
implant (in MPa) bone (in MPa) of bone (µm) implant (in MPa) bone (in MPa) of bone (µm)
30 60 10.34 5.73 3.50 8.96 3.07 2.50
90 14.07 6.13 3.70 10.63 3.79 3.00
120 12.44 5.84 3.10 9.27 3.41 2.70
60 60 11.00 5.38 3.50 8.38 3.51 2.67
90 10.78 6.04 3.05 8.43 3.56 2.40
120 8.49 5.54 3.20 8.08 3.21 2.64
90 60 5.65 2.85 2.51 7.34 2.45 2.15
90 6.64 2.95 2.58 7.15 2.46 2.13
120 5.82 3.10 2.48 6.45 2.70 2.10

64 Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society | Vol 49 | Issue 2 | Apr-Jun 2015

 Marimuthu, et al.: FEM analysis on mini-implant
Table 4: Comparison of stress on implant, stress on bone
and displacement of bone between maxilla and mandible
Group n Mean SD t P
Stress on implant Mandible 9 8.30 1.25 1.08 0.295
(in MPa) Maxilla 9 9.47 2.99
Stress on bone Mandible 9 3.13 0.49 3.40 0.004**
(in MPa) Maxilla 9 4.84 1.42
Displacement of Mandible 9 2.48 0.31 3.21 0.005**
bone (µm) Maxilla 9 3.07 0.46
**Highly significant. SD: Standard deviation
Discussion
The proper angle of insertion is important for cortical
anchorage, patient safety, and biomechanical control.[12‑14]
Different implant insertion angles 30, 60°, and 90° were used
in this study. In general, the stress induced on cancellous bone
is much lower than that on the cortex.[12,16] Therefore, only
cortical bone stress was examined in this present study.
The results found that in maxilla, the maximum von Mises
stress for various insertion angles indicated that the stress
on implant decreased from 30° to 90° with maximum stress
(12.28 MPa) observed at 30° insertion angle, this may be due
to longer lever arm at 30° implant insertion angle. Longer lever
arm reduces the implant anchorage resistance so that failure
can occur even within orthodontic force levels.[13] Previous
studies by Zhang et al.[14] and Jasmine et al.[12] (2011) reported
that when the implant insertion angle was increased from 30°
to 90°, the stress on the cervix of the implant was decreased
in maxilla.
The maximum von Mises stress on bone in maxilla was decreased
with increase in insertion angle from 30° to 90° with maximum
stress (5.90 MPa) observed at 30° insertion angle. Increased stress
on bone at 30° may be due to the fact that the buccal surface of
the mini‑implant has less bone contact when compared to that of
the lingual surface and some part of the threaded portion might
be left unsupported by the bone due to the decreased angulation
of the mini‑implant.[12,17] Woodall et al.[13] found that the stress
on bone was decreased when the implant insertion angle was
increased from 30° to 90° in maxilla.
This study showed the displacement of bone in maxilla
decreased with increase in insertion angle from 30° to 90° with
maximum displacement (3.43 µm) observed at 30° angulation.
The exposure length of the lever arm may be the possible
reason for increased displacement of bone at implant‑bone
interface. If the cortical bone displacement exceeds the
specified physiologic limit, it may cause necrosis and micro
fracture of the osseous tissue, ultimately leading to the failure
of the mini‑implant.[14]
In this study, the maximum von Mises stress on bone in
mandible decreased with increase in insertion angle from
30° to 90° with maximum stress (3.43 MPa) observed in both
30° and 60° angulation, the reason may be that some of the
Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society | Vol 49 | Issue 2 | Apr-Jun 2015 65
threaded portion of mini‑implants are exposed in 30° and 60°
implant insertion angle.[18] The mini‑implant failure is mainly
due to loss of primary stability. Clinically, the loss of primary
stability occurs due to increased stress on bone which in turn
leads to more macrophages, cytokines, and inflammatory
mediators at the site. The biomechanical stress and strain at
the implant‑bone interface result in peri‑implant inflammation,
which in turn causes bone loss.[12] This supports the studies
conducted by Woodall et al.[13] Jasmine et al.[12] that the stress
on bone decreases as the insertion angle of implant increased
from 30° to 90°. Lin et al.[16] found that the increase in implant
insertion angle from 60° to 120° decreases stress on bone.
In this study, the displacement of bone in mandible decreased
with increase in implant insertion angle from 30° to 90° with
maximum displacement (2.73 µm) observed at 30° angulation.
It may be due to increased lever arm exposure as the implant
insertion angle decreased.
The maximum von Mises stress on implant, bone and
displacement of bone for various orthodontic force
angles was statistically insignificant in both maxilla and
mandible. These finding were similar to the study of Lin etal.[16]
In maxilla, results showed that when the implant of 30° insertion
angle and an orthodontic force was applied at 90° angulation, a
maximum stress on implant (14.07 MPa), the maximum stress
on bone (6.13 MPa), and maximum displacement of bone (3.70
µm) were observed and in mandible, the maximum stress on
implant (10.63 MPa), the maximum stress on bone (3.79 MPa),
and maximum displacement of bone (3.0 µm) were observed
but was not statistically significant. The increased values with
a force direction of 90° may be due to pure bending load of
mini‑implant as compared to 60° and 120° with bending plus
axial loading.
Comparison of maximum von Mises stress on implant, bone
and displacement of bone between maxilla and mandible using
different insertion angles of implant and various direction
of orthodontic force indicates that the maximum stress on
bone (4.84 MPa) and the maximum displacement of bone
(3.07 MPa) was observed in maxilla than in mandible and was
statistically significant. This is mostly due to the difference
in the modulus of elasticity in the cortical and the cancellous
bones, as well as the greater cortical bone thickness of the
mandible. It was obvious that the bone stress is higher in
cortical than in the cancellous bone, and the orthodontic stress
was mainly bone to the cortical bone.[16] Lin et al.[16] suggested
that the increase in cortical bone thickness decreases the stress
around mini‑implant. Jasmine et al.[12] (2013) reported that
the maximum von Mises stress on bone was higher in maxilla
compared to that of mandible.
Previous studies by Miyawaki et al.,[19] Deguchi et al.[15]
suggested placement of mini‑implant at 30° insertion angle
increases the stability of implant due to increased cortical bone
contact with the mini‑implant. In contrast Woodall et al.,[13]
Lee et al. [18] (2013), and Jasmine et al. [12] (2013) have
recommended placing mini‑implant at 90° to the bone surface
 Marimuthu, et al.: FEM analysis on mini-implant
increases the biomechanical stability of mini‑implant, while
indicating that placement angle <90° potentially creates longer
lever arms causing increased stress and displacement around
the mini‑implant and these findings support our result that
placing implants perpendicular to the bone surface increases
implant stability. A previous study conducted by Liu et al.[2]
(2012) suggested an oblique loading direction instead of the
perpendicular direction of force. This is due to the fact that
the bending load induced much higher stress than an axial
load. In contrast, Lin et al.[16] reported that the direction of
orthodontic force had no significant effect on the stress around
the mini‑implant. Based on our results and those of previous
studies, placement of mini‑implant perpendicular to the long
axis of the teeth is recommended as long as root damage
can be avoided to increase the biomechanical stability. The
orthodontic force angle had no statistical significance on stress
and displacement around the mini‑implant on both maxilla
and mandible.
Although the parameters evaluated in this finite element
study are based on clinical conditions, we understand that
the biological tissue and the finite element model are not
identical. It is impossible to measure stresses around the
mini‑implant in vivo. [16] Hence, this study incorporated
biomechanical factors, which might not be exactly
comparable to the real situation. The human tissue may vary
between patient to patient and between male and female.
Hence, it is impossible to replicate the living tissue exactly
in a finite element model and this should be considered when
interpreting the results of this study.
Conclusion
The conclusions derived from this study are:
• The comparison of the maximum von Mises stress in the
mini‑implant reported, that as the insertion angle increased
from 30° to 90°, stress decreased in both maxilla and
mandible
• The comparison of the maximum von Mises stress in the
cortical bone reported, that as the insertion angle increased
from 30° to 90°, stress decreased in both maxilla and
mandible
• The comparison of the maximum displacement of cortical
bone at implant‑bone interface reported that as the
insertion angle increases from 30° to 90°, the displacement
of bone decreased in both maxilla and mandible
• The comparison of maxilla and mandible showed that
the maximum von Mises stress on cortical bone and the
maximum displacement of bone were greater in maxilla
than in mandible
• Direction of orthodontic force has no significant effect
on stress and displacement around mini‑implant in both
maxilla and mandible.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
66 Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
References
1. Haydar S, Uner O. Comparison of Jones jig molar distalization appliance
with extraoral traction. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:49‑53.
2. Liu TC, Chang CH, Wong TY, Liu JK. Finite element analysis of
miniscrew implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:468‑76.
3. Singh S, Mogra S, Shetty VS, Shetty S, Philip P. Three‑dimensional
finite element analysis of strength, stability, and stress distribution in
orthodontic anchorage: A conical, self‑drilling miniscrew implant
system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:327‑36.
4. Jung YR, Kim SC, Kang KH, Cho JH, Lee EH, Chang NY, et al.
Placement angle effects on the success rate of orthodontic microimplants
and other factors with cone‑beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2013;143:173‑81.
5. Reynders R, Ronchi L, Bipat S. Mini‑implants in orthodontics: A
systematic review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2009;135:564.e1‑19.
6. Lim HJ, Eun CS, Cho JH, Lee KH, Hwang HS. Factors associated with
initial stability of miniscrews for orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:236‑42.
7. Huang YW, Chang CH, Wong TY, Liu JK. Bone stress when miniplates
are used for orthodontic anchorage: Finite element analysis. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:466‑72.
8. Gracco A, Cirignaco A, Cozzani M, Boccaccio A, Pappalettere C,
Vitale G. Numerical/experimental analysis of the stress field around
miniscrews for orthodontic anchorage. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:12‑20.
9. Chatzigianni A, Keilig L, Reimann S, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Effect of
mini‑implant length and diameter on primary stability under loading
with two force levels. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:381‑7.
10. Baggi L, Cappelloni I, Di Girolamo M, Maceri F, Vairo G. The influence
of implant diameter and length on stress distribution of osseointegrated
implants related to crestal bone geometry: A three‑dimensional finite
element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:422‑31.
11. El‑Beialy AR, Abou‑El‑Ezz AM, Attia KH, El‑Bialy AM, Mostafa YA.
Loss of anchorage of miniscrews: A 3‑dimensional assessment. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:700‑7.
12. Jasmine MI, Yezdani AA, Tajir F, Venu RM. Analysis of stress in
bone and microimplants during en‑masse retraction of maxillary
and mandibular anterior teeth with different insertion angulations: A
3‑dimensional finite element analysis study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2012;141:71‑80.
13. Woodall N, Tadepalli SC, Qian F, Grosland NM, Marshall SD,
Southard TE. Effect of miniscrew angulation on anchorage resistance.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e147‑52.
14. Zhang Y, Zhang D, Feng C, Peng P, Hu H, Kawakami T, et al. A
three‑dimensional finite element analysis for the biomechanical characteristics
of orthodontic anchorage micro‑implant. J Hard Tisuue Biol 2006;15:69‑72.
15. Deguchi T, Nasu M, Murakami K, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H,
Takano‑Yamamoto T. Quantitative evaluation of cortical bone thickness
with computed tomographic scanning for orthodontic implants. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:721.e7‑12.
16. Lin TS, Tsai FD, Chen CY, Lin LW. Factorial analysis of variables
affecting bone stress adjacent to the orthodontic anchorage mini‑implant
with finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2013;143:182‑9.
17. Ono A, Motoyoshi M, Shimizu N. Cortical bone thickness in the buccal
posterior region for orthodontic mini‑implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac
Surg 2008;37:334‑40.
18. Lee J, Kim JY, Choi YJ, Kim KH, Chung CJ. Effects of placement
angle and direction of orthopedic force application on the stability of
orthodontic miniscrews. Angle Orthod 2013;83:667‑73.
19. Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M, Mishima K, Sugahara T,
Takano‑Yamamoto T. Factors associated with the stability of titanium
screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:373‑8.
| Vol 49 | Issue 2 | Apr-Jun 2015