Page 23 - COS-FOD2015
P. 23
Compend. Oral Sci:vol1(3);2015;14-20
complications of miniscrew anchorage in thopedics, 2010. 138(3): p. 264-276.
clinical orthodontics. Japanese Dental
14. Shinohara, A., et al., Root proximity and
Science Review, 2014. 50(4): p. 79-85.
inclination of orthodontic mini-implants
6. Ohnishi, H., et al., A Mini-Implant for Ort after placement: Cone-beam computed
hodontic Anchorage in a Deep Overbite tomography evaluation. American Jour-
Case. The Angle Orthodontist, 2005. nal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
75(3): p. 444-452. Orthopedics, 2013. 144(1): p. 50-56.
7. Ódman, J., et al., Osseointegrated im- 15. Ozdemir, F., M. Tozlu, and D. Germec-
plants as orthodontic anchorage in the Cakan, Cortical bone thickness of the
treatment of partially edentulous adult alveolar process measured with cone-
patients. European Journal of Ortho- beam computed tomography in patients
dontics, 1994. 16(3): p. 187-202. with different facial types. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop, 2013. 143(2): p.
8. Klokkevold, P.R., et al., Osseointegration
190-6.
enhanced by chemical etching of the tita-
nium surface. A torque removal study in 16. Fayed, M.M.S., P. Pazera, and C. Katsa-
the rabbit. Clinical oral implants re- ros, Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-
search, 1997. 8(6): p. 442-447. implant placement assessed by cone
beam computed tomography. The Angle
9. Schnelle, M.A., et al., A Radiographic
orthodontist, 2010. 80(5): p. 939-951.
Evaluation of the Availability of Bone for
Placement of Miniscrews. The Angle 17. Kim, S.-H., et al., Evaluation of interden-
Orthodontist, 2004. 74(6): p. 832-837. tal space of the maxillary posterior area
for orthodontic mini-implants with cone-
10. Chaimanee, P., B. Suzuki, and E.Y. Su-
beam computed tomography. American
zuki, “Safe Zones” for miniscrew implant
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofa-
placement in different dentoskeletal pat-
cial Orthopedics, 2009. 135(5): p. 635-
terns. The Angle Orthodontist, 2011.
641.
81(3): p. 397-403.
18. Holmes, P.B., B.J. Wolf, and J. Zhou, A
11. Min, K.-I., et al., Root proximity and corti-
CBCT atlas of buccal cortical bone thick-
cal bone thickness effects on the suc-
ness in interradicular spaces. The Angle
cess rate of orthodontic micro-implants
Orthodontist, 2015. 85(6): p. 911-919.
using cone beam computed tomography.
The Angle orthodontist, 2012. 82(6): p. 19. Lee, K.-J., et al., Computed tomographic
1014-1021. analysis of tooth-bearing alveolar bone
for orthodontic miniscrew placement.
12. Kuroda, S., et al., Root proximity is a ma-
American Journal of Orthodontics and
jor factor for screw failure in orthodontic
Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2009. 135(4):
anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
p. 486-494.
Orthop, 2007. 131(4 Suppl): p. S68-73.
20. Martinelli, F.L., et al., Anatomic variability
13. Kim, S.-H., et al., Cone-beam computed
in alveolar sites for skeletal anchorage.
tomography evaluation of mini-implants
American Journal of Orthodontics and
after placement: Is root proximity a major
risk factor for failure? American Journal
of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Or-
19
