First, I congratulate and appreciate the authors of this case report for bringing up an inspiring solution for a critical clinical issue. Based on the present case, I have two major concerns.Q1. Miniscrew implants have become a popular method for providing skeletal orthodontic anchorage. However, reported success rates of these devices vary from less than 50% to more than 95%, while the overall failure rate of miniscrew implants was 13.5%. Thank you for your kind interest on the subject.
A1.A lingual arch was planned and placed presurgically in order to withstand such complications. But when the premolar and molar teeth positions and the distance they were moved forward were considered, loss of anchorage was almost unavoidable even with such a device. There is not much choice of devices other than mini-screws when "absolute anchorage" is needed for mandibular teeth. As you may confirm, a single lingual arch was not the best choice in such a case but the space was mostly closed when the mini-screws were lost. Loss of the screws could be attributed to many factors including bone physiology itself. The tissue formation rate was estimated to be two to ten times faster than normal regeneration process around the field of corticotomy area. 3 This change in bone turn-over rate can also affect the interaction between the miniscrew implants and the bone, however detailed studies
READER'S FORUMMete Ozer, Berat Serdar Akdeniz, Mahmut Sumer Alveolar ridge expansion-assisted orthodontic space closure in the mandibular posterior region.