Abstract
An article was published in October 2020 by Anil Miglani and Cyan C with the purpose to evaluate and compare the initial stability of mini implants, with dimensions 1.3 mm × 8 mm and 2 mm × 8 mm, using RFA, at various anatomic sites in the maxillary and mandibular arches and to assess the bone contact surface area of the mini implants (1.3 mm × 8 mm and 2 mm × 8 mm) and its effect on stability. 1
The article was very informative, innovative, and of great knowledge but we have come across certain doubts. Kindly respond for the same.
As stated in the article (Page 144, Conclusion), the increase in mini implant diameter from 1.3 mm to 2 mm resulted in increased primary stability. However, in Table 2 Pearson Correlation between implant surface contact area (ISCA) and stability for 1.3 mm × 8 mm is 0.816 which was higher than 0.742 value of 2 mm × 8 mm. It indicates that the primary stability was higher in the mini implant with the smaller diameter.
As mentioned in the materials and methods (Page 139) the field of view was 17 cm × 30 cm and the voxel size was 300 mm, which is 30 cm. However, it is not acceptable to have a voxel size equivalent to the field of view. 2
Figures 1 and 2 show an axial view of maxilla and mandible at 6 mm from the coronal portion of the alveolar bone. While Figures 4 and 5 show an axial view of maxilla and mandible after the removal of mini-implants from the site. If we compare the molar region of Figure 1 with Figure 4, the slices were taken at different levels, which rather should have been at the same level to appreciate the radiolucency.
The author has specified (Page 140, Materials and Methods) that the contact surface area of the implants was measured using CBCT. However, the use of any third party software was not mentioned.
The aim of the study was to assess the ISCA with the stability. However, Table 2 (Page 142) and Table 3 (Page 143) shows the Pearson correlation between all the entities. For instance the correlation between BCT and LCT was evaluated, which was not relevant.
The article states (Page 139, Materials and Methods) that 72 buccal and lingual stainless steel mini-implants were inserted at 45 and 90 degrees at all 36 sites. According to this there should have been 144 implants for either angulation, hence making it a total of 288 implants.
The author states (Page 139, Materials and Methods) that buccal and lingual mini-implants were used in this study. However, only the buccal placement sites in the maxilla and mandible have been mentioned.
