European Journal of Orthodontics, 2016, 154–162

doi:10.1093/ejo/cjv017
Advance Access publication 23 April 2015

Original article

Laser-treated stainless steel mini-screw

implants: 3D surface roughness, bone-implant
contact, and fracture resistance analysis
He-Kyong Kang*,**, Tien-Min Chu***, Paul Dechow****,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/38/2/154/2599865 by guest on 21 January 2021

Kelton Stewart*****, Hee-Moon Kyung****** and Sean Shih-Yao Liu***** 
*Department of Orthodontics, University of Detroit Mercy School of Dentistry, MI, **Department of Orthodontics
and Oral Facial Genetics, ***Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Indiana University
School of Dentistry, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, ****Department of Biomedical Sciences,
Baylor College of Dentistry, Texas A&M Health Science Center, Dallas, TX, *****Department of Orthodontics and
Oral Facial Genetics, Indiana University School of Dentistry, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN,
USA, and ******Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyung-Pook National University, Daegu, Korea.

Correspondence to: Sean Shih-Yao Liu, Department of Orthodontics and Oral Facial Genetics, Indiana University School of
Dentistry, Indiana University-Purdue University, Indianapolis, IN, USA. E-mail: ssliu@iu.edu

Summary
Background/Objectives:  This study investigated the biomechanical properties and bone-implant
intersurface response of machined and laser surface-treated stainless steel (SS) mini-screw
implants (MSIs).
Material and Methods:  Forty-eight 1.3 mm in diameter and 6 mm long SS MSIs were divided into
two groups. The control (machined surface) group received no surface treatment; the laser-treated
group received Nd-YAG laser surface treatment. Half in each group was used for examining surface
roughness (Sa and Sq), surface texture, and facture resistance. The remaining MSIs were placed in
the maxilla of six skeletally mature male beagle dogs in a randomized split-mouth design. A pair
with the same surface treatment was placed on the same side and immediately loaded with 200 g
nickel–titanium coil springs for 8 weeks. After killing, the bone-implant contact (BIC) for each MSI
was calculated using micro computed tomography. Analysis of variance model and two-sample t
test were used for statistical analysis with a significance level of P <0.05.
Results:  The mean values of Sa and Sq were significantly higher in the laser-treated group
compared with the machined group (P <0.05). There were no significant differences in fracture
resistance and BIC between the two groups.
Limitation:  animal study
Conclusions/Implications:  Laser treatment increased surface roughness without compromising
fracture resistance. Despite increasing surface roughness, laser treatment did not improve BIC.
Overall, it appears that medical grade SS has the potential to be substituted for titanium alloy MSIs.

Introduction was reported in 1945 (1). Later, Linkow presented a different

approach for anchorage reinforcement with an endosseous blade
The achievement of ‘absolute’ anchorage has always been a chal-
implant (2). Skeletal anchorage, however, did not become widely
lenge in orthodontics. The earliest attempt to use a screw or
accepted until the first successful case report in 1983 of a surgical
implant as skeletal anchorage to facilitate orthodontic treatment

© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved.
154
For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
H.-K. Kang et al. 155

Vitallium bone screw used to intrude maxillary central incisors
(3). Fourteen years later, Kanomi (4) reported that titanium mini-
implants (1.2 mm in diameter and 6 mm long) can be used to con-
trol vertical and horizontal tooth movement without undesired
side effects. Since then, numerous clinical reports and experimen-
tal studies have been published showing that mini-screw implants
(MSIs) have become a crucial tool in contemporary orthodontic
mechanics (5).
Most modern MSIs are fabricated from medical type IV or V tita-
nium alloy with a thread diameter ranging from 1.2 to 2.0 mm and
a length from 4.0 to 12.0 mm (6). Their applications were limited
because of the anatomic structures of the jaws. Since most MSIs are
inserted into inter-radicular areas, the risk of damage to roots, nerves,
blood vessels, nasal, and maxillary sinuses, bone, etc. still exists (7).
The inter-radicular distances were reported as 1.60–3.46 mm in the
maxilla and 1.99–4.25 mm in the mandible with increasing widths
Nd-YAG laser (wave length 1064 nm) was commonly used for
changing surface texture of titanium implants (11, 23–27) due to
its higher absorption on metallic surface compared to other types
of lasers (35). It has been shown that Nd-YAG laser irradiation can
modify the metallic surfaces and cause extensive melting on titanium
disc even at the lowest energy setting (36). This laser roughening
process can enhance bone-implant surface interaction of SS MSIs.
However, whether laser treatment can affect the strength of SS MSIs
and bone reaction around them has not been fully evaluated. The
aims of this study were to 1. investigate surface roughness, surface
texture, and fracture resistance of SS MSIs with machined surface
and Nd-YAG laser-treated surface, 2. explore whether SS MSIs can
be suitable substitutes of titanium alloy MSIs for orthodontic load-
ing, and 3.  determine whether or not the surface modification by
Nd-YAG laser improves the bone response around immediate loaded
SS MSIs.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/38/2/154/2599865 by guest on 21 January 2021

from the CEJ to the apex (8). To avoid damaging structures, MSI
diameters should be reduced as much as possible. Based on a volu-
metric tomographic image study, an ideal titanium MSI placed in the Materials and methods
inter-radicular spaces is recommended to be a conic-shaped implant, A total of 48 MSIs (316 SS, 1.2–1.3 mm in diameter, 6 mm long)
with a cutting thread of 6–8 mm in length, and a maximum diam- were customized from medical grade 316 SS (Dentos, Daegu, Korea)
eter of 1.2–1.5 mm (9). A study showed that the optimal length of and randomly assigned to two surface texture groups (Figure 1). One
MSIs with a diameter of 1.3 mm is 5 mm in the maxilla and 6 mm in group received no surface treatment (machined surface); the other
the mandible (10). However, the decrease in MSI diameter reduces was treated with Nd-YAG/passively Q-switched laser (laser-treated
its strength and can possibly result in fracture during insertion (11) surface) according to the manufacturer protocol. Half of the samples
and removal (9, 12). When fractured, it is sometimes difficult to (12 machined and 12 laser-treated) were used for surface roughness
remove small MSI tips from bone (13). To avoid fracture, the MSI’s and strength evaluation and the other half was used in a prospective
material should have adequate strength to resist insertion torque. in vivo experiment to compare BIC.
Alternatively, instead of Ti, 316 stainless steel (SS) can be considered Surface roughness was measured directly with a non-contact
for its low cost, high yield strength, corrosion resistance, and easy scanning white light interferometer, ZeGage (Zygo Corporation,
processing (6, 14). Middlefield, Connecticut, USA). Samples were placed directly on the
Stainless steel is one of the most widely used biomaterials and has stage for measurements on the valley and inclined at approximately
been used for fixation of bone segments for decades (6). Although 60 degrees on a V-block for measurements on the flank (Figure 1).
the stability of MSIs is expected from the mechanical interlock and
osseointegration between screw and bone (15), the formation of a
fibrous tissue capsule around SS MSIs may interrupt proper bone-
implant contact (BIC) (16). Current evidence suggests that a high
percentage of BIC is not desirable for temporary anchorage because
MSIs must be easily removed at the end of treatment (13). In addi-
tion, some mobility is acceptable with unidirectional light force (12).
Deguchi et al. (17) speculated that low BIC could successfully toler-
ate 200–300 g of orthodontic force. However, a certain amount of
osseointegration around SS MSIs may still be required for successful
anchorage (18).
Many articles proposed a strong correlation between surface
roughness and BIC (19–22). Among additive and subtractive meth-
ods used for surface texturing, laser treatment is a new approach
(22). Several studies have noted that the removal torque of laser-
treated titanium was significantly higher when compared with
machined groups (11, 23–26). A tendency for more bone formation
on laser-treated surface was also observed (27). Laser roughening
enhances hardness, roughness, corrosion resistance, and the degree
of purity on modified surfaces (28, 29). Besides, laser ablation cre-
ates microporosity in a strictly regular pattern by melting superficial
layer of metal surfaces (24, 29, 30). Several studies showed that cells
involved in osseointegration had preferable reactions with highly
ordered and uniform surface roughness than with random roughness
(31, 32). The pattern of surface microstructure can easily be con-
trolled by manipulating the parameters of laser machines including:
pulse frequency, output energy, scanning speed, and pulse intervals
(33, 34). Figure 1.  MSIs with machined surface (left) and laser-treated surface (right).
156
Surface roughness was measured on a standardized area of approxi-
mately 200 × 200 μm on the valley and 160 × 160 μm on the flank
(Figure  2). The Sa (arithmetical mean height, mean surface rough-
ness) and Sq (root mean square height, standard deviation of the
height distribution) measurements were repeated three times on each
MSI. All images were acquired and analysed with the integrated
ZeMaps software in micrometers.
For evaluation of surface characteristics, two SS MSIs from each
group were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Each MSI was set on aluminium SEM specimen mounts by using
double stick carbon tape (Electron Microscopy Sciences, Hatfield,
Pennsylvania, USA). SEM images were captured digitally on an
Amray 1910 Field Emission scanning electron microscope with
SEMTech Solutions X-Stream Imaging software (SEMTech solu-
tions, North Billerica, Massachusetts, USA). The surface features
were examined on the valley between third and fourth threads with
low (500×) and high magnification (5000×).
Following the topographic measurements and SEM, fracture
resistance was assessed as the maximum torque at the time of frac-
ture. Each MSI was inserted into a pilot hole (1.0 mm diameter, 3 mm
deep) in homogenous acrylic blocks 1 × 1 × 1.8 cm. The MSIs were
hand driven half the length of the threads into the acrylic (Figure 3).
Once the MSIs were firmly seated in the pilot holes, each sample
block was connected to an engine driver attached to a digital torque
gauge (Mark-10, Copiague, New York, USA).The block with MSI
was secured on the stage and rotated 2 degrees per second until the
MSI was fractured. The peak torque value at MSI fracture was indi-
cated as fracture resistance at accuracy of 0.5 Ncm (Figure 3).
Six skeletally mature female beagle dogs (ages 10–15  months;
weight, about 9 kg) were selected and approved by Institutional
Figure 2.  3D scanning images of surface roughness. (A) Valley of machined surface. (B) Flank of machined surface. (C) Valley of laser-treated surface. (D) Flank
of laser-treated surface.
European Journal of Orthodontics, 2016, Vol. 38, No. 2
Animal Care and Use Committee. Using a randomized split-mouth
design, two MSIs with the same surface texture were placed on one
side of the maxilla and immediately loaded with 200 g of force.
Similarly, a pair of MSIs with the other type of surface was placed
and loaded on the other side of the maxilla. Inter-radicular areas
of the third premolars and the first molars were appropriate place-
ment locations according to diagnostic periapical radiographs.
A  surgical stent was fabricated with two pieces of SS rectangular
wires and light-curing temporary filling material (Spident, Incheon,
Korea). Each wire was marked every 3 mm as a gauge (Figure 4). All
MSIs were placed perpendicular to the buccal alveolar bone with an
implant motor at 15 rpm following initial insertion by a hand driver.
Periapical radiographs were taken during placement to verify the
clearance with the roots.
The 200 g tension loads were applied with nickel–titanium (NiTi)
coil springs (Dentsply GAC International, Bohemia, New York,
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/38/2/154/2599865 by guest on 21 January 2021
USA) with activation >3 mm (Figure 4). The length was measured at
the first day and final day of experiment to confirm that the 200 g of
force was maintained. The appliances were inspected and irrigated
with 0.2 per cent chlorhexidine every week. Stabilities were evalu-
ated at insertion and at week 8, and the survival rate was calculated
(Figure 5A). Any MSI that showed mobility greater than 1 mm when
tested with cotton pliers, or that had pulled out by the spring, was
deemed a failure.
Eight weeks after placement, the animals were euthanized and
each maxilla was resected en bloc (Figure 5B) and stored in 70 per
cent ethanol followed by methylmethacrylate (MMA) embedding
prior to sectioning for scanning. Each bone-MSI sample was trimmed
parallel to the long axis of the MSI (Figure 5C) and placed into a
specimen carrier for scanning (Figure  5D and 5F). Each specimen
H.-K. Kang et al.
Figure 3.  (A) MSI placement in an acrylic block prior to measuring the peak fracture torque. (B) The head being twisted by an engine driver attached to a torque
gauge. (C) The MSI was fractured.
was scanned by µCT 35 (Scanco Medical, Basserdorf, Switzerland).
The resolution was set at 1 slice every 6 µm and a X-ray energy level
of 70 kVp, 114 µA, and 8W was used. The three-dimensional (3D)
BIC was calculated as the ratio of bone volume to total volume (BV/
TV) in the zone of 18–36  µm from the MSI surface. The zone of
0–18 µm from the MSI surface was excluded to minimize metallic
artifacts of the voxel adjacent to the MSI.
After scanning, all bone-MSI samples were ground along the
axis of the MSIs to slices of 150–170 µm thick with an Exakt sys-
tem (EXAKT Technologies, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA) and
stained with Toluidine blue. Images of each MSI were captured
under 4× magnification using Nikon microscopy and merged using
Image Composite Editor (Microsoft Research, Mountain View,
California, USA) software (Figure 5E and 5G). The two-dimensional
(2D) BIC was evaluated as the length of bone in direct contact with
the thread of the MSI divided by the total length of the MSI thread
multiplied by 100.
Statistical methods
Surface roughness, peak fracture torque, and 3D and 2D BIC of each
group were summarized as mean and standard deviation. ANOVA
model with repeated measurements was used to test the effect of
groups (control and treated) for each outcome (Sa and Sq separately
for the flank and the valley. The same statistics was performed to
157
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/38/2/154/2599865 by guest on 21 January 2021
compare the mean values of Sa and Sq on the flank and the valley
in the same group. For comparison of peak fracture torque, ANOVA
model was used. Two sample t-test was used to evaluate the effects of
surface treatment (machined, laser-treated) on 3D and 2D BIC. The
overall significance level was set at 5 per cent.
Results
Three SS MSIs demonstrated mobility of less than 1 mm. They were
all machined type, located at the first molars, but firm enough for
clinical use. Thus, consistent with the above defined criteria, there
were no failures. The three coil springs associated with the mobile
MSIs became shorter, but they remained stretched more than 3 mm
at week 8, meaning that all MSI loads were maintained at 200 g of
force throughout the experiment. Most MSIs at the third premolar
demonstrated bicortical anchorage with the perforation of the max-
illary sinus wall (Figure 5).
The mean values of Sa and Sq were significant higher in the laser-
treated group (Sa: 0.36 ± 0.076  μm; Sq: 0.54 ± 0.199  μm) than the
machined group (Sa: 0.10 ± 0.051 μm; Sq: 0.17 ± 0.149 μm). Laser
treatment increased surface roughness more than 3-fold (Table  1).
The mean values of Sa and Sq on the valley (Sa: 0.13 ± 0.02 μm; Sq:
0.21 ± 0.03 μm) were significantly higher than on the flank in the con-
trol group, but not in the laser-treated group (valley: 0.38 ± 0.03 μm;
158 European Journal of Orthodontics, 2016, Vol. 38, No. 2

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/38/2/154/2599865 by guest on 21 January 2021

Figure  4.  MSI placement. (A) Positioning stent. (B) Radiographic image indicating the furcation areas of the third premolar and the first molar. (C) MSI in
placement. (D) Radiographic image confirming the proper placement of MSI in the inter-radicular areas. (E) Immediate loading with a NiTi coil of 200 g. (F)
Radiographic image showing inter-radicular placement of MSIs with attachment of a NiTi coil.

flank: 0.36 ± 0.08 μm) (Table1). Under SEM, laser-modified surface
texture was characterized with spherical elevations and extensive
melting (Figure 6). There was no significant difference in the mean
values of peak torque at fracture between machined (13.42 ± 0.63
Ncm) and laser-modified (13.08 ± 0.85 Ncm) MSIs (Table 2). No sig-
nificant differences were found for the mean values of 3D and 2D
BIC between two groups (Table 3).
Discussion
Several parameters can be used for measuring surface roughness, but
Sa is most commonly used for 3D studies (37, 38). In addition, Sq,
another 3D parameter of surface roughness, was used for roughness
measurement because Sq is more sensitive to extreme values and sta-
tistically more powerful than Sa (39, 40). Laser treatment increased
Sa and Sq more than 3-fold (Table 1). This indicates that Nd-YAG
laser treatment improved surface roughness by increasing both aver-
aged surface peak heights and deviations of the surface peak heights
with a uniform surface texture on the surface of the thread. In the
machined surface control group, Sa and Sq were higher on the valley
than on the flank areas (Table 1). In the fabricating process, a MSI is
usually ‘cut’ from a metal rod. The relatively smooth surface on the
flank area is due to the machining process when cutting the metal
rod (41). Our results suggest that laser surface treatment increases
surface roughness on both valley and flank areas of the MSI thread.
Consistent with surface roughness measurement, SEM images
also show that surface texture was modified to become rougher
by laser treatment. In previous studies, a ring structure with cen-
tral holes and melting pearls was identified on laser-roughened CP
Ti implant (23, 24, 30). The 200  µm pores created on the surface
of Ti6Al4 V implants by laser texturing was suggested as the opti-
mal size for new bone formation (33, 34). Compared to machined
surface (Figure 6A and 6B), the roughness was obviously increased
on laser-treated surface (Figure 6C and 6D). Round projections and
extensive melting were observed (Figure 6D), but a regular pattern
of laser work usually seen on laser-treated titanium implants was not
prominent in this study. This is probably because the periodic stria-
tion pattern is attenuated by extensive melting due to lower melt-
ing temperature of SS (42). Although linear scratches and surf-like
pattern crossing over the scratches were apparent on the machined
surface (Figure  6A), the machined surface looked smooth even at
high magnification (Figure 6B).
H.-K. Kang et al. 159

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/38/2/154/2599865 by guest on 21 January 2021

Figure 5.  3D and 2D images of MSIs. (A) Picture taken at week 8 showing the head of SS MSIs covered by connective tissue. (B) Bone-MSI sample showing
bicortical anchorage obtained at third premolar. (C) Each bone-MSI sample was trimmed parallel to the long axis of the MSI. (D) 3D reconstructed image of
SS MSI placed at furcation of left third premolar. (E) Histological image of SS MSI placed at furcation of left third premolar with bicortical anchorage. (F) 3D
reconstructed image of MSI at furcation of left first molar. (G) Histological image of SS MSI placed at furcation of left first molar.

Table 1.  Comparison of surface roughness of valley and flank and overall roughness.

Sa Overall Sa Sq Overall Sq

Group Area N Mean SD P value Mean SD P value Mean SD P value Mean SD P value

Machined type Valley 12 0.13 0.02 0.0003* 0.10 0.051 <0.0001* 0.21 0.03 <0.0001* 0.17 0.149 <0.0001*
Flank 12 0.10 0.05 0.17 0.15
Laser-treated type Valley 12 0.38 0.03 0.5189 0.36 0.076 0.53 0.08 0.5104 0.54 0.199
Flank 12 0.36 0.08 0.54 0.20

SD indicates standard deviation.

*Indicates statistically significant differences between the measurements on the valley and flank surfaces within the same surface texture group and between
machined-surface and laser-treated mini-screw implants (P < 0.05), determined by ANOVA model with repeated measurements.

The average peak torque at fracture was not statistically differ- strengths of these 1.3 mm in diameter × 6 mm long MSIs are not
ent between machined and laser-treated groups (Table 2), indicating higher than machined titanium alloy MSIs in identical shape and
that laser treatment did not alter the strength of the MSIs. Based size. It seems to be in conflict with the current knowledge that SS
on the data released from the manufacturer, the average torque has higher Young modulus compared with titanium (43). However,
160
Figure 6.  SEM images of SS MSIs. (A) Machined surface at 500× magnification. (B) Machined surface at 5000× magnification. (C) Laser-treated surface at 500×
magnification. (D) Laser-treated surface at 5000× magnification.
Table 2.  Comparison of the mean values of peak fracture torque.
Peak Fracture Torque (Ncm)
Group N Mean SD Minimum Maximum P value
Machined type 12 13.42 0.63 12.50 14.50 0.2873
Laser-treated type 12 13.08 0.85 12.00 14.50
SD indicates standard deviation.
the superiority of mechanical strength between SS and Ti MSIs can-
not be simply concluded due to fracture torques measurements per-
formed by different operating settings. Carano et  al. (44) showed
that SS MSIs started bending at lower level of forces regardless
of the values of failure load twice higher than Ti MSIs. The origi-
nal properties of SS probably were altered by heat and pressure
created during cutting process. The screw geometry and materi-
als compositions can also change the screw’s mechanical strength
(44). Therefore, further studies regarding how the screw design and
manufacturing process affects MSI mechanical properties are still
needed.
Ure et  al. (15) demonstrated that primary and secondary sta-
bility affected clinical stability of MSIs. Maximal primary stabil-
ity was obtained immediately by mechanical retention mainly
from cortical bone and gradually reduced while bone remodelling
occurred around MSIs. Secondary stability formed by osseointegra-
tion increased over time and compensated the loss of primary sta-
bility starting at week 3 for maintaining clinical stability of MSIs.
Secondary stability is usually indicated by BIC. Although laser
European Journal of Orthodontics, 2016, Vol. 38, No. 2
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/38/2/154/2599865 by guest on 21 January 2021
Table  3. Comparison of the mean values of three-dimensional
bone-implant contact (BIC), indicated by bone volume/total vol-
ume (BV/TV) and two-dimensional BIC.
3D BIC 2D BIC
Group N Mean (%) SD P value N Mean (%) SD P value
Machined 12 46.2 7.2 0.95 12 6.3 4.9 0.42
type
Laser-treated 12 46.0 8.8 11 8.2 6.1
type
SD indicates standard deviation.
treatment significantly increased roughness, it did not improve 3D
BIC. Albrektsson and Wennerberg suggested that the optimal bone
response can be induced by the moderate roughness (Sa of 1–2 μm)
of the majority of commercial dental implants (37, 38). However,
in this study, even the laser-treated surface would be considered as
a smooth surface (Sa less than 0.5  μm) (37), which explains why
laser-treatment did not increase BIC compared with the relatively
smoother machined surface.
In this study, the ratio of BV/TV, the relative amount of bone
per unit of volume, was used to represent BIC in the 3D analysis.
Because of the radiographic scatter induced by the metal implant
thread (45), it is impossible to assess BV/TV immediately adja-
cent to the surface of MSIs. The zone of 18–36  μm from the
implant surface has been recommended as the best estimate for
BV/TV (46). Ikeda et al reported that 3D BIC (BV/TV) ratios of
medullary bone ranged from 15 to 36 per cent in the zone of
H.-K. Kang et al. 161

2. Despite significantly increased roughness of laser treated MSIs,

compared with machined ones, laser treatment does not increase
peak torque at fracture. Therefore, improvement of strength of
MSI is not the indication for laser treatment of MSIs
3. For secondary stability of SS MSIs, there was no significant dif-
ference between machined and laser-treated MSIs. Despite the
mild mobility of some machined SS MSIs, all SS MSIs survived
for 8 weeks under constant force (200 g) application. The BV/
TV of 3D analysis can be considered a useful measurement to
determine the bone-implant attachment of MSIs.

Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to Carol Bain from the Mineralized Tissue and
Histology Research Laboratory of Indiana University School of Dentistry for
histology and image analyses and Dorothy Sorenson from Biomedical Research

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/38/2/154/2599865 by guest on 21 January 2021

Core Facilities of University of Michigan Medical School for SEM analysis.

References
Figure  7.  SS MSIs with mild mobility. (A) 3D constructed image of SS MSI
placed at furcation of left first molar. (B) Fibrous tissue surrounding SS MSIs.
6–24  μm and from 46 to 84 per cent in the zone of 24–42  μm
around titanium alloy MSIs in a dog study (46). The mean values
of BV/TV ratios derived from the 18–36  μm zone in this study
(46.03 per cent in machined group; 46.24 per cent in laser-treated
group) were similar to those obtained for titanium alloy MSIs.
Gritsch et al. (47) reported that there was no significant differ-
ence for BIC and survival rate between SS and titanium alloy
MSIs in a pig study. The five per cent of BIC obtained 4 weeks
after placement was critical to increase success rate of SS MSIs.
Brown et al. (18) also demonstrated that SS and titanium alloy
MSIs offered the same stability and similar histological finding
in a 6-week rabbit study. These findings were consistent with the
results obtained from this study. Overall, it appears that medi-
cal grade SS can possibly be substituted for titanium alloy MSIs.
Interestingly, there was a difference between the 2D and 3D
BIC results. The MSIs with mild mobility at week 8 showed zero
per cent BIC in the 2D histological sections, but demonstrated
38.0 per cent of BV/TV in 3D reconstructed image (Figure  7).
The observed difference might have resulted from the limited
assessment of spatial morphology on histologic specimens. Bone
can only be observed in one plane on the 2D histology sections
rather than the whole bone structure surrounding the thread in
3D micro-CT imaging. Bernhardt et  al. found that there was a
significant intra-sample variation in BIC when using one or two
histologic slides to determine BIC compared with 3D evaluation
of bone-implant volume on regular dental implants. They also sug-
gested preparing at least 3–4 sections to identify BIC on each sam-
ple to minimize the influence from the variation (48). However, it
is difficult to have 3–4 histologic slides from an orthodontic mini-
screw less than 2 mm in diameter. 3D analysis seems to be a useful
alternative approach to estimate secondary stability of MSIs.
Conclusion
1. Surface roughness was increased more than three times due to
melting and solidification on laser-treated surface. A typical regu-
lar striation pattern of microporosity was not noticed on SEM
images due to extensive melting.
1. Gainsforth, B.L. and Higley, L.B. (1945) A study of orthodontic anchorage
possibilities in basal bone. American Journal of Orthodontics and Oral
Surgery 31, 406–417.
2. Linkow LI. (1969) The endosseous blade implant and its use in orthodon-
tics. Intrenational Journal of Orthodontics, 7, 149–154.
3. Creekmore, T.D. and Eklund, M.K. (1983) The possibility of skeletal
anchorage. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 17, 266–269.
4. Kanomi, R. (1997) Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. Journal of
Clinical Orthodontics, 31, 763–767.
5. Papadopoulos, M.A., Papageorgiou, S.N. and Zogakis, I.P. (2011) Clinical
effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. Journal
of Dental Research, 90, 969–976.
6. Disegi, J. and Eschbach, L. (2000) Stainless steel in bone surgery. Injury,
31, D2–D6.
7. Kravitz, N.D. and Kusnoto, B. (2007) Risks and complications of ortho-
dontic miniscrews. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
Orthopedics, 131, S43–S51.
8. Park, J. and Cho, H.J. (2009) Three-dimensional evaluation of interradicu-
lar spaces and cortical bone thickness for the placement and initial sta-
bility of microimplants in adults. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics, 136, 314 e311–312.
9. Poggio, P.M., Incorvati, C., Velo, S. and Carano, A. (2006) “Safe zones”:
a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch.
Angle Orthodontist, 76,191–197.
10. Suzuki, M., Deguchi, T., Watanabe, H., Seiryu, M., Iikubo, M., Sasano,
T., Fujiyama, K. and Takano-Yamamoto, T. (2013) Evaluation of optimal
length and insertion torque for miniscrews. American Journal of Ortho-
dontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 144, 251–259.
11. Mortensen, M.G., Buschang, P.H., Oliver, D.R., Kyung, H.M. and
Behrents, R.G. (2009) Stability of immediately loaded 3- and 6-mm mini-
screw implants in beagle dogs--a pilot study. American Journal of Ortho-
dontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 136, 251–259.
12. Park, H.S., Jeong, S.H. and Kwon, O.W. (2006) Factors affecting the
clinical success of screw implants used as orthodontic anchorage.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 130,
18–25.
13. Papadopoulos, M.A. and Tarawneh, F. (2007) The use of miniscrew
implants for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontics: a comprehen-
sive review. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology,
and Endodontics, 103, e6–e15.
14. Yang, K. and Ren, Y. (2010) Nickel-free austenitic stainless steels for
medical applications. Science and Technology of Advanced Materials, 11,
014105.
15. Ure, D.S., Oliver, D.R., Kim, K.B., Melo, A.C. and Buschang, P.H. (2011)
Stability changes of miniscrew implants over time. Angle Orthodontist,
81, 994–1000.
162
16. Gotman, I. (1997) Characteristics of metals used in implants. Journal of
Endourology, 11, 383–389.
17. Deguchi, T., Takano-Yamamoto, T., Kanomi, R., Hartsfield, J.K., Jr., Rob-
erts, W.E. and Garetto, L.P. (2003) The use of small titanium screws for
orthodontic anchorage. Journal of Dental Research, 82, 377–381.
18. Brown, R.N., Sexton, B.E., Chu, T.M., Katona, T.R., Stewart, K.T., Kyung,
H.M. and Liu, S.S. (2014) Comparison of stainless steel and titanium
alloy orthodontic miniscrew implants: a mechanical and histologic analy-
sis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 145,
496–504.
19. Buser, D., Schenk, R.K., Steinemann, S., Fiorellini, J.P., Fox, C.H. and Stich,
H. (1991) Influence of surface characteristics on bone integration of tita-
nium implants. A histomorphometric study in miniature pigs. Journal of
Biomedical Materials Research, 25, 889–902.
20. Gotfredsen, K., Berglundh, T. and Lindhe, J. (2000) Anchorage of tita-
nium implants with different surface characteristics: an experimental
study in rabbits. Clinical Implant Dentistry and Related Research, 2,
120–128.
21. Le Guehennec, L., Goyenvalle, E., Lopez-Heredia, M.A., Weiss, P.,
Amouriq, Y. and Layrolle, P. (2008) Histomorphometric analysis of the
osseointegration of four different implant surfaces in the femoral epiphy-
ses of rabbits. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 19, 1103–1110.
22. Alla, R. K., Ginjupalli, K., Upadhya, N., Shammas, M., Ravi, R.K. and
Sekhar, R. (2011) Surface roughness of implants: a review. Trends in Bio-
materials and Artificial Organs, 25, 112–118.
23. Hallgren, C., Reimers, H., Chakarov, D., Gold, J. and Wennerberg A.
(2003) An in vivo study of bone response to implants topographically
modified by laser micromachining. Biomaterials, 24, 701–710.
24. Cho, S.A. and Jung, S.K. (2003) A removal torque of the laser-treated tita-
nium implants in rabbit tibia. Biomaterials, 24, 4859–4863.
25. Faeda, R.S., Tavares, H.S., Sartori, R., Guastaldi, A.C. and Marcantonio,
E., Jr. (2009) Evaluation of titanium implants with surface modification by
laser beam. Biomechanical study in rabbit tibias. Brazilian Oral Research,
23, 137–143.
26. Kang, S.H. and Cho, S.A. (2011) Comparison of removal torques for laser-
treated titanium implants with anodized implants. Journal of Craniofacial
Surgery, 22, 1491–1495.
27. Marticorena, M., Corti, G., Olmedo, D., Guglielmotti, M. and Duhalde,
S. (2007) Laser surface modification of Ti implants to improve osse-
ointegration. Journal of Physics: Conference Series: IOP Publishing,
662.
28. Picraux, S.T. and Pope, L.E. (1984) Tailored surface modification by ion
implantation and laser treatment. Science, 226, 615–622.
29. Berardi, D., De Benedittis, S., Scoccia, A., Perfetti, G., and Conti, P.
(2011) New laser-treated implant surfaces: A  histologic and histomor-
phometric pilot study in rabbits. Clinical & Investigative Medicine, 34,
E202–E210.
30. Gaggl, A., Schultes, G., Muller, W.D. and Karcher, H. (2000) Scanning elec-
tron microscopical analysis of laser-treated titanium implant surfaces-a
comparative study. Biomaterials, 21, 1067–1073.
31. Dan, N. (2000) Synthesis of hierarchical materials. Trends in Biotechnol-
ogy, 18, 370–374.
32. Tan, J. and Saltzman, W.M. (2004) Biomaterials with hierarchically
defined micro- and nanoscale structure. Biomaterials, 25, 3593–3601.
European Journal of Orthodontics, 2016, Vol. 38, No. 2
33. Stangl, R., Pries, A., Loos, B., Müller, M. and Erben, R. (2004) Influence of
pores created by laser superfinishing on osseointegration of titanium alloy
implants. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research, 69, 444–453.
34. Götz, H., Müller, M., Emmel, A., Holzwarth, U., Erben, R. and Stangl,
R. (2004) Effect of surface finish on the osseointegration of laser-treated
titanium alloy implants. Biomaterials, 25, 4057–4064.
35. Kannatey-Asibu, E. (2009) Principles of lase materials processing. Wiley
Series on Processing of Engineering Materials. Vol. 4, pp. 507.
36. Romanos, G., Everts, H. and Nentwig, G. (2000) Effects of diode and
Nd:YAG laser irradiation on titanium discs: a scanning electron micro-
scope examination. Journal of Periodontology, 71, 810–815.
37. Wennerberg A, Albrektsson T. (2009) Effects of titanium surface topog-
raphy on bone integration: a systematic review. Clinical Oral Implants
Research, 20 (Suppl 4), 172–184.
38. Svanborg, L.M., Andersson, M. and Wennerberg, A. (2010) Surface charac-
terization of commercial oral implants on the nanometer level. Journal of
Biomedical Materials Research, Part B: Applied Biomaterials, 92, 462–469.
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ejo/article/38/2/154/2599865 by guest on 21 January 2021
39. Dong, W., Sullivan, P. and Stout, K. (1994) Comprehensive study of
parameters for characterising three-dimensional surface topography: III:
Parameters for characterising amplitude and some functional properties.
Wear, 178, 29–43.
40. Wennerberg, A., Albrektsson, T. and Andersson, B. (1996) Bone tissue
response to commercially pure titanium implants blasted with fine and
coarse particles of aluminum oxide. International Journal of Oral & Max-
illofacial Implants, 11, 38–45.
41. Taha, Z., Lelana, H. K., Aoyama, H., Ghazilla, R. A.  R., Gonzales, J.,
Sakundarini, N., and Sutono, S. B. (2010) Insert geometry effects on sur-
face roughness in turning process of AISI D2 steel. Journal of Zhejiang
University Science A, 11, 966–971.
42. Osterman, V. and Antes, H. Jr. (2010) Critical melting points and reference
data for vacuum heat treating. Solar Atmosphere Inc. U.S.A. Vacucum Fur-
nace Rreference Series, No.1, 1–42.
43. Long, M. and Rack, H. J. (1998) Titanium alloys in total joint replace-
ment-a materials science perspective. Biomaterials, 19, 1621–1639.
44. Carano, A., Lonardo, P., Velo, S., and Incorvati, C. (2005) Mechanical
properties of three different commercially available miniscrews for skel-
etal anchorage. Progress in Orthodontics, 6, 82–97.
45. Bernhardt, R., Scharnweber, D., Muller, B., Thurner, P., Schliephake, H.,
Wyss, P., Beckmann, F., Goebbels, J. and Worch, H. (2004) Comparison
of microfocus- and synchrotron X-ray tomography for the analysis of
osteointegration around Ti6Al4V implants. European Cells & Materials
Impact Factor, 7, 42–51.
46. Ikeda, H., Rossouw, P.E., Campbell, P.M., Kontogiorgos, E. and Buschang,
P.H. (2011) Three-dimensional analysis of peri-bone-implant contact of
rough-surface miniscrew implants. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics, 139, e153–e163.
47. Gritsch, K., Laroche, N., Bonnet, J.M., Exbrayat, P., Morgon, L., Rabil-
loud, M. and Grosgogeat, B. (2013) In vivo evaluation of immediately
loaded stainless steel and titanium orthodontic screws in a growing bone.
Public Library of Science One, 8, e76223.
48. Bernhardt, R., Kuhlisch, E., Schulz, M. C., Eckelt, U. and Stadlinger, B.
(2012) Comparison of bone-implant contact and bone-implant volume
between 2D-histological sections and 3D SRµCT slices. European Cells
and Materials, 23, 237–248.