Histomorphometric Evaluation of Cortical Bone Thickness Surrounding Miniscrew for Orthodontic Anchorage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recently, the use of miniscrews as an anchorage device has become a routine approach in the orthodontic field. However, there is no report that has analyzed the healing process of the miniscrew, such as the thickness of the cortical bone, in the past. PURPOSE: In the present study, to histologically assess the healing process of the osseous tissue surrounding miniscrews used as an orthodontic anchorage, the change in the thickness of the cortical bone was analyzed after 3, 6, and 12 weeks after the placement. Furthermore, the change in the bone-implant contact in different regions of the miniscrew during the initial healing period was also investigated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six miniscrews were placed in eight beagle dogs. After 3, 6, and 12 weeks of healing, a force of 200-300 g was applied to the force-applied groups for 12 weeks. Non-forced groups remained in the jaw without force application. RESULTS: In the non-forced groups, a significant amount of cortical bone was formed at the head of the miniscrew at the initial stage of the healing process in the maxilla. However, less cortical bone formation was observed in the mandible. After the force application, increased bone formation was observed within 1 mm of the miniscrew compared to other regions in both jaws. In the mandible, significantly less cortical bone was observed 3 and 6 weeks after the force application. Bone-implant contact revealed that the osseous tissue surrounding the miniscrew matured from the apex toward the head of the miniscrew. CONCLUSION: We suggest that this sufficient amount of cortical bone at the initial stage of healing enables the immediate loading in miniscrews to resist against orthodontic force. Furthermore, less amount of cortical bone formed at the head of the miniscrew may be one reason for the higher failure rate in the mandible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".