{"status":"ok","message-type":"work","message-version":"1.0.0","message":{"indexed":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,26]],"date-time":"2026-08-26T17:21:30Z","timestamp":1787764890982,"version":"build-2784847793"},"reference-count":20,"publisher":"Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)","issue":"4","license":[{"start":{"date-parts":[[2025,10,1]],"date-time":"2025-10-01T00:00:00Z","timestamp":1759276800000},"content-version":"unspecified","delay-in-days":0,"URL":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0"}],"content-domain":{"domain":["lww.com","ovid.com"],"crossmark-restriction":true},"short-container-title":[],"published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025,10]]},"abstract":"<jats:title>Abstract<\/jats:title>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Background:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>Mini-implants are crucial in orthodontics for absolute anchorage, allowing precise dental movements without affecting adjacent structures. Exploring alternative materials with proven biocompatibility and potential for improved clinical performance is essential. This study compares the mechanical resistance of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and stainless steel mini-implants to evaluate PEEK\u2019s feasibility as an alternative.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Objectives:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>To compare PEEK and stainless steel for orthodontic mini-implants, focusing on maximum load resistance and suitability for temporary anchorage.<\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Materials and Methods:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Two groups of 12 mini-implants (2 mm \u00d7 8 mm) were tested: milled PEEK and stainless steel (TD Orthodontics\u00a9, Nuevo Le\u00f3n, Mexico). Both mini-implants were inserted into porcine mandibles, sectioned placed in acrylic bases and subjected to maximum load tests using a universal testing machine. Data normality was assessed with the Shapiro\u2013Wilk test and variances with Levene\u2019s test. Comparisons were performed using Welch\u2019s\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">t<\/jats:italic>\n                      -test (\u03b1 = 0.05), with effect sizes (Hedges\u2019 g) and 95% confidence intervals reported.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Results:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Stainless steel mini-implants showed a mean maximum load of 255.77 N whereas PEEK averaged 57.14 N after outlier adjustment. Welch\u2019s\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">t<\/jats:italic>\n                      -test confirmed a significant difference between groups (\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">P<\/jats:italic>\n                      &lt; 0.001) with a large effect size (Hedges\u2019 g = 2.31). Statistically significant differences were observed between groups, with a mean difference of 198.6 N (95% CI 126.3\u2013271.0).\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>\n                  <jats:sec>\n                    <jats:title>Conclusion:<\/jats:title>\n                    <jats:p>\n                      Although stainless steel exhibited greater load resistance, PEEK mini-implants exceeded clinically relevant orthodontic forces (50\u2013400 g), supporting their potential as temporary anchorage devices. Further\n                      <jats:italic toggle=\"yes\">in vivo<\/jats:italic>\n                      and clinical studies are needed to confirm long-term performance.\n                    <\/jats:p>\n                  <\/jats:sec>","DOI":"10.4103\/ijdr.ijdr_153_25","type":"journal-article","created":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,23]],"date-time":"2026-02-23T14:00:38Z","timestamp":1771855238000},"page":"402-406","update-policy":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1097\/lww.0000000000001000","source":"Crossref","is-referenced-by-count":0,"title":["Comparison Between Stainless Steel and Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Temporary Anchorage Devices in Orthodontics - A Comparative Study"],"prefix":"10.4103","volume":"36","author":[{"given":"Eduardo","family":"P\u00e9rez Maldonado Barrag\u00e1n","sequence":"first","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Mauricio","family":"Navarro Villalobos","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Master\u2019s Program in Dental Sciences, Faculty of Odontology, Laguna Unit, Autonomous University of Coahuila, Torre\u00f3n, Coahuila, Mexico"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Santiago J.","family":"Garc\u00eda Rosas","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Dentistry, Universidad Europea de Madrid, Madrid, Spain"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Manuel A.","family":"Ojeda Misses","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Basic Sciences and Engineering, Universidad Aut\u00f3noma del Estado de Hidalgo, Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]},{"given":"Edgar","family":"G\u00f3mez Obreg\u00f3n","sequence":"additional","affiliation":[{"name":"Department of Orthodontics, Universidad AME, Nuevo Le\u00f3n, Mexico"}],"role":[{"vocabulary":"crossref","role":"author"}]}],"member":"276","published-online":{"date-parts":[[2026,2,21]]},"reference":[{"key":"R1-20260325","first-page":"142","article-title":"Correcci\u00f3n de maloclusi\u00f3n dental clase II unilateral con dispositivo de anclaje temporal","volume":"28","author":"Fernando","year":"2015","journal-title":"CES Odont"},{"key":"R2-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"501","DOI":"10.1563\/AAID-JOI-D-13-00235","article-title":"Adjunctive orthodontic applications in dental implantology","volume":"41","author":"Borzabadi-Farahani","year":"2015","journal-title":"J Oral Implantol"},{"key":"R3-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"496","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajodo.2013.12.022","article-title":"Comparison of stainless steel and titanium alloy orthodontic miniscrew implants:A mechanical and histologic analysis","volume":"145","author":"Brown","year":"2014","journal-title":"Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop"},{"key":"R4-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"587","DOI":"10.2319\/081619-536.1","article-title":"Stainless steel or titanium mini-implants?A systematic review","volume":"90","author":"Mecenas","year":"2020","journal-title":"Angle Orthod"},{"key":"R5-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"132","DOI":"10.4067\/S0718-381X2021000100132","article-title":"Allergic reactions in orthodontic patients:A review","volume":"15","author":"Alencar","year":"2021","journal-title":"Int J Odontostomatol"},{"key":"R6-20260325","first-page":"ZE04","article-title":"Allergic reactions to dental materials-a systematic review","volume":"9","author":"Syed","year":"2015","journal-title":"J Clin Diagnostic Res"},{"key":"R7-20260325","first-page":"1","article-title":"Polyetheretherketone material in dentistry","volume":"15","author":"Parate","year":"2023","journal-title":"Cureus"},{"key":"R8-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"5426","DOI":"10.3390\/ijms15045426","article-title":"Current strategies to improve the bioactivity of PEEK","volume":"15","author":"Ma","year":"2014","journal-title":"Int J Mol Sci"},{"key":"R9-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"84","DOI":"10.5577\/intdentres.2018.vol8.no2.6","article-title":"Areas for use of PEEK material in dentistry","volume":"8","author":"Tekin","year":"2018","journal-title":"Int Dent Res"},{"key":"R10-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1804","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jds.2023.05.026","article-title":"Assessment of mechanical characteristics of polyetheretherketone as orthodontic fixed lingual retainers","volume":"18","author":"Win","year":"2023","journal-title":"J Dent Sci"},{"key":"R11-20260325","first-page":"1271","article-title":"A comparative analysis of mechanical properties of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) vs","volume":"16","author":"Win","year":"2024","journal-title":"standard materials used in orthodontic fixed appliances:A systematic review. Polymers (Basel)"},{"key":"R12-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"132","DOI":"10.1016\/j.jmbbm.2018.07.032","article-title":"Failure load and stress analysis of orthodontic miniscrews with different transmucosal collar diameter","volume":"87","author":"Sfondrini","year":"2018","journal-title":"J Mech Behav Biomed Mater"},{"key":"R13-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"387","DOI":"10.1590\/S0102-86502003000500003","article-title":"Mini-swine (minipig) in experimental biomedical research:the BR1 minipig","volume":"18","author":"Mariano","year":"2003","journal-title":"Acta Cir Bras"},{"key":"R14-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"102","DOI":"10.1179\/1465313313Y.0000000084","article-title":"Peak insertion torque values of five mini-implant systems under different insertion loads","volume":"41","author":"Quraishi","year":"2014","journal-title":"J Orthod"},{"key":"R15-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"1022","DOI":"10.2319\/011912-47.1","article-title":"An in vitro study of factors affecting the primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants","volume":"82","author":"Holm","year":"2012","journal-title":"Angle Orthod"},{"key":"R16-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"e1271","DOI":"10.4317\/jced.54010","article-title":"Peek polymer in orthodontics:A pilot study on children","volume":"9","author":"Ierardo","year":"2017","journal-title":"J Clin Exp Dent"},{"key":"R17-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"128","DOI":"10.1590\/S1415-54192008000500013","article-title":"Assessment of flexural strength and fracture of orthodontic mini-implants","volume":"13","author":"Pithon","year":"2008","journal-title":"Revista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Facial"},{"key":"R18-20260325","first-page":"75","article-title":"Skeletal anchorage in orthodontics--A review of various systems in animal and human studies","volume":"23","author":"Janssen","year":"2008","journal-title":"Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants"},{"key":"R19-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"564","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajodo.2009.02.003","article-title":"Mini-implants in orthodontics:A systematic review of the literature","volume":"135","author":"Reynders","year":"2009","journal-title":"Am J Orthodont Dentofacial Orthop"},{"key":"R20-20260325","doi-asserted-by":"crossref","first-page":"284","DOI":"10.1016\/j.ajodo.2007.08.017","article-title":"Critical factors for the success of orthodontic mini-implants:A systematic review","volume":"135","author":"Chen","year":"2009","journal-title":"Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop"}],"container-title":["Indian Journal of Dental Research"],"original-title":[],"language":"en","link":[{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.4103\/ijdr.ijdr_153_25","content-type":"unspecified","content-version":"vor","intended-application":"similarity-checking"}],"deposited":{"date-parts":[[2026,8,26]],"date-time":"2026-08-26T16:49:23Z","timestamp":1787762963000},"score":1,"resource":{"primary":{"URL":"https:\/\/www.ovid.com\/10.4103\/ijdr.ijdr_153_25"}},"subtitle":[],"short-title":[],"issued":{"date-parts":[[2025,10]]},"references-count":20,"journal-issue":{"issue":"4","published-print":{"date-parts":[[2025]]}},"URL":"https:\/\/doi.org\/10.4103\/ijdr.ijdr_153_25","relation":{},"ISSN":["0970-9290","1998-3603"],"issn-type":[{"value":"0970-9290","type":"print"},{"value":"1998-3603","type":"electronic"}],"subject":[],"published":{"date-parts":[[2025,10]]},"assertion":[{"value":"2025-03-05","name":"received","label":"Received","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}},{"value":"2025-11-17","name":"accepted","label":"Accepted","group":{"name":"publication_history","label":"Publication History"}}]}}