Implants for Orthodontic Anchorage

Rodríguez, J; Suárez, Fernando; Chan, Hsun‐Liang; Padial‐Molina, Miguel; Wang, Hom Lay

doi:10.1097/id.0000000000000048

Cited by 35 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Their convenience, simplicity and superior performance compared with conventional methods have contributed to their wide acceptance [ 7 ]. Several systematic reviews had shown the overall failure rates for OMIs with further exploration of the potential factors contributing to their failure [ 8 – 11 ]. However, OMIs could be placed in various insertion sites, and every one of those has its potential anatomical advantages and limitations [ 12 , 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesThe aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the failure rates of miniscrews related to their specific insertion site and explore the insertion site dependent risk factors contributing to their failure.Search methodsAn electronic search was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Knowledge, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed up to October 2017. A comprehensive manual search was also performed.Eligibility criteriaRandomised clinical trials and prospective non-randomised studies, reporting a minimum of 20 inserted miniscrews in a specific insertion site and reporting the miniscrews’ failure rate in that insertion site, were included.Data collection and analysisStudy selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Studies were sub-grouped according to the insertion site, and the failure rates for every individual insertion site were analysed using a random-effects model with corresponding 95% confidence interval. Sensitivity analyses were performed in order to test the robustness of the reported results.ResultsOverall, 61 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Palatal sites had failure rates of 1.3% (95% CI 0.3–6), 4.8% (95% CI 1.6–13.4) and 5.5% (95% CI 2.8–10.7) for the midpalatal, paramedian and parapalatal insertion sites, respectively. The failure rates for the maxillary buccal sites were 9.2% (95% CI 7.4–11.4), 9.7% (95% CI 5.1–17.6) and 16.4% (95% CI 4.9–42.5) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between maxillary first molars and second premolars and between maxillary canines and lateral incisors, and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress respectively. The failure rates for the mandibular buccal insertion sites were 13.5% (95% CI 7.3–23.6) and 9.9% (95% CI 4.9–19.1) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between mandibular first molars and second premolars and between mandibular canines and first premolars, respectively. The risk of failure increased when the miniscrews contacted the roots, with a risk ratio of 8.7 (95% CI 5.1–14.7).ConclusionsOrthodontic miniscrew implants provide acceptable success rates that vary among the explored insertion sites. Very low to low quality of evidence suggests that miniscrews inserted in midpalatal locations have a failure rate of 1.3% and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress have a failure rate of 16.4%. Moderate quality of evidence indicates that root contact significantly contributes to the failure of interradicular miniscrews placed between the first molars and second premolars. Results should be interpreted with caution due to methodological drawbacks in some of the included studies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40510-018-0225-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…malocclusion cases. According to clinical research [3][4][5], the current success rate for mini-implants and micro-implants of various designs and sizes is >80%. Orthodontic implants inserted into bones exhibit two types of stability: primary and secondary stability.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Effect of Anchor Volume on the Mechanical Strengths of Orthodontic Micro-Implants

Tseng

Ting

et al. 2017

Metals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anchor volume (AV) might be an important factor affecting mechanical strengths of micro-implant. To investigate the correlation between AV and three mechanical strengths (IT: insertion torque; RF: resonance frequency; HPS: horizontal pullout strength), 55 micro-implants (diameter 1.5 mm: Type A, B, C; diameter 1.3 mm: Type D and E) were driven into the artificial bones at a 7-mm depth. The RF, IT, HPS and AV were measured. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post comparison and Pearson's correlation were used to detect significant differences. Null hypothesis states that there was no statistically significant correlation between AV and these three forces (IT, RF, and HPS). Type A and Type D had the lowest IT (4.2 Ncm). Type C had the highest RF (9.9 KHz) in the stability test, and Type B had the greatest HPS (190.9 Ncm) in the resistance test. There was significant correlation between the IT and HPS. AV was significantly correlated with RF, IT, and HPS. The null hypothesis was rejected. In this study, each of these brands had its distinct advantages in the RF, IT, and HPS. Moreover, inner diameter/outer diameter ratio and AV affect the magnitude of HPS.

show abstract

“…Likewise, Albogha and Takahashi have stated a success rate ranging from 77.7% to 93.43% in their study [2]. However, the failure of miniscrew may have dramatic consequences and remain difficult to be anticipated by orthodontists [3]. Since the failure of miniscrew necessitates additional surgical interventions and prolonged treatment time, investigating the mechanical stability of miniscrew becomes imperative.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is clinically evident that full osseointegration is a prerequisite for successful prosthetic (or dental) implants [4, 5]. Nevertheless, some fibrous tissue formation at the bone-implant interface would be acceptable because orthodontic loading has to be applied as early as possible and also the miniscrew at the end of treatment must be easily removable [3]. That is to say, partial bone-implant osseointegration of the miniscrew might be permitted for orthodontic treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical Effects of Various Bone-Implant Interfaces on the Stability of Orthodontic Miniscrews: A Finite Element Study

Tan

Wang

Yang

et al. 2017

Journal of Healthcare Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Osseointegration is required for prosthetic implant, but the various bone-implant interfaces of orthodontic miniscrews would be a great interest for the orthodontist. There is no clear consensus regarding the minimum amount of bone-implant osseointegration required for a stable miniscrew. The objective of this study was to investigate the influence of different bone-implant interfaces on the miniscrew and its surrounding tissue. Methods Using finite element analysis, an advanced approach representing the bone-implant interface is adopted herein, and different degrees of bone-implant osseointegration were implemented in the FE models. A total of 26 different FE analyses were performed. The stress/strain patterns were calculated and compared, and the displacement of miniscrews was also evaluated. Results The stress/strain distributions are changing with the various bone-implant interfaces. In the scenario of 0% osseointegration, a rather homogeneous distribution was predicted. After 15% osseointegration, the stress/strains were gradually concentrated on the cortical bone region. The miniscrew experienced the largest displacement under the no osseointegra condition. The maximum displacement decreases sharply from 0% to 3% and tends to become stable. Conclusion From a biomechanical perspective, it can be suggested that orthodontic loading could be applied on miniscrews after about 15% osseointegration without any loss of stability.

show abstract

Implants for Orthodontic Anchorage

Abstract: Mini-implant survival rate is location dependent, with those placed in the palate showing higher success rates. In addition, failures most commonly occur because of surgery-related factors.

Cited by 35 publications

References 46 publications

Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The Effect of Anchor Volume on the Mechanical Strengths of Orthodontic Micro-Implants

Biomechanical Effects of Various Bone-Implant Interfaces on the Stability of Orthodontic Miniscrews: A Finite Element Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About