Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

±³Á¤¿ë ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·Î ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ µðÀÚÀÎÀÌ Åä¿ÀÅ©¿Í ÆÄÀý°­µµ¿¡ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâ

Torque and mechanical failure of orthodontic micro-implant influenced by implant design parameters

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2007³â 37±Ç 3È£ p.171 ~ 181
À¯¿øÀç, °æÈñ¹®,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
À¯¿øÀç ( Yu Won-Jae ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡ÀÇÇÐÀü¹®´ëÇпø ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç
°æÈñ¹® ( Kyung Hee-Moon ) - °æºÏ´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ ±³Á¤Çб³½Ç

Abstract

¸¶ÀÌÅ©·Î ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ½Ä¸³ ȤÀº Á¦°Å ½ÃÀÇ Åä¿ÀÅ©´Â ¾ÈÁ¤¼º°ú ±â°èÀû ÆÄÀý °¡´É¼º¿¡ ´ëÇÑ Ã´µµ°¡ µÇ¹Ç·Î °ñÁ¶°Ç ¹× ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ µðÀÚÀΰú ¿¬°èÇÑ »ý¿ªÇÐÀû ºÐ¼®À» ÅëÇØ À̸¦ Çؼ®ÀûÀ¸·Î ¿¹ÃøÇÏ´Â ¼ö´ÜÀ» °®´Â °ÍÀÌ ÀÇ¹Ì ÀÖ´Â °úÁ¦¶ó »ç·áµÈ´Ù. ÀÌ¿¡ º» ¿¬±¸¿¡¼­´Â, ±¹»ê Absoanchor (Dentos Inc. Daegu, Korea) ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·Î ÀÓÇöõÆ® ¸ðµ¨À» ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿© ±âº»Àû µðÀÚÀÎ º¯¼ö(design parameter)ÀÎ ±æÀÌ, Á÷°æ, ³ª»ç»ê Å©±â¿Í Åä¿ÀÅ© ¹× ÀÓÇöõÆ®ÀÇ ºñƲ¸² ÆÄÀý°­µµ¿ÍÀÇ ¿ªÇÐÀû »ó°ü°ü°è¿¡ ´ëÇØ Çؼ®ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, °ñƯ¼ºÀÌ ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿µÇâÀ» °í·ÁÇϱâ À§Çؼ­ ÀÓÇöõÆ®/Çظé°ñ °è¸éÀÇ ÀúÇ×·Â(S_{can})À» 1.0{sim}2.5MPa ¹üÀ§·Î ¼³Á¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐ¼®À» À§ÇØ ÀÓÇöõÆ® µðÀÚÀÎ º¯¼öµé¸¸ÀÇ ÇÔ¼öÀÎ Åä¿ÀÅ© Áö¼ö¿Í ºñƲ¸² ÆÄÀý °­µµÀÇ ÁöÇ¥ÀÎ °­µµ Áö¼ö¸¦ Á¤ÀÇÇÏ¿´´Ù. ºÐ¼®°á°ú, ÀÓÇöõÆ® Á÷°æÀÌ Áõ°¡ÇÒ¼ö·Ï Åä¿ÀÅ© Áö¼ö°¡ Áõ°¡ÇÏÁö¸¸ °­µµ Áö¼ö°¡ Åä¿ÀÅ© Áö¼öº¸´Ù Áõ°¡À²ÀÌ Ä¿¼­ ºñƲ¸² ÆÄÀý¿¡ ´ëÇÑ ¾ÈÀü¿µ¿ªÀÌ Áõ°¡ÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç, ³ª»ç»ê ³ôÀÌ°¡ Ä¿Áö¸é Åä¿ÀÅ© Áö¼ö°¡ Áõ°¡ÇÏÁö¸¸ °­µµ Áö¼ö´Â °¨¼ÒµÇ´Â °ÍÀ» °üÂûÇÏ¿´´Ù. Absoanchor ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·Î ÀÓÇöõÆ®´Â Çظé°ñ°ú °è¸é¿¡¼­ÀÇ ÀúÇ×·Â(S_{can})ÀÌ 1.0 MPa ÀÌÇÏ¿¡¼­´Â Àü ¸ðµ¨ÀÌ Åä¿ÀÅ©¿¡ ÀÇÇÑ ºñƲ¸² ÆÄÀý·ÎºÎÅÍ ¾ÈÀüÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®µÇ¾úÀ¸³ª (S_{can})ÀÌ Áõ°¡Çϸé ÀϺΠ¸ðµ¨¿¡¼­´Â ÆÄÀý À§Ç輺ÀÌ ÀÖ´Â °ÍÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®µÇ¾ú´Ù. S_{can}ÀÌ 1.5 MPa¼öÁØ¿¡¼­´Â °æºÎÁ÷°æÀÌ 1.5 mm ÀÌ»óÀ̸é Àüü ±æÀÌ(5{sim}12mm)¿¡¼­ ¾ÈÀüÇÏ¿´´Ù. ¶ÇÇÑ, S_{can}ÀÌ 2.0 MPa ¼öÁØ¿¡¼­ ½Ä¸³±íÀÌ 8 mm¸¦ °¡Áö·Á¸é °æºÎÁ÷°æÀÌ 1.5 mm ÀÌ»óÀÎ ¸ðµ¨À» ¼±Á¤ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ ¾ÈÀüÇÑ °ÍÀ¸·Î ºÐ¼®µÇ¾ú´Ù.

Objective: The present study was aimed at an analytical formulation of the micro-implant related torque as a function of implant size, i.e. the diameter and length, screw size, and the bony resistance at the implant to bone interface.

Methods: The resistance at the implant to cancellous bone interface (S_{can}) was assumed to be in the range of 1.0-2.5 MPa. Micro-implant model of Absoanchor (Dentos Inc. Daegu, Korea) was used in the course of the analysis.
Results: The results showed that the torque was a strong function of diameter, length, and the screw height. As the diameter increased and as the screw size decreased, the torque index decreased. However the strength index was a different function of the implant and bone factors. The whole Absoanchor implant models were within the safe region when the resistance at the implant/cancellous bone (=S_{can}) was 1.0 or less.

Conclusion: For bone with S_{can} of 1.5 MPa, the cervical diameter should be greater than 1.5 mm if micro-implant models of 12 mm long are to be placed. For S_{can} of 2.0 MPa, micro-implant models of larger cervical diameter than 1.5 mm were found to be safe only if the endosseous length was less than 8 mm.

Å°¿öµå

±³Á¤¿ë ¸¶ÀÌÅ©·Î ÀÓÇöõÆ®;µðÀÚÀÎ º¯¼ö;Åä¿ÀÅ©;ºñƲ¸² ÆÄÀý
Orthodontic micro-implant;Design parameter;Torque;Torsional failure

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

  

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed