Evaluation of factors influencing the success rate of orthodontic microimplants using panoramic radiographs

Abstract

ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate factors influencing the success rate of orthodontic microimplants (OMIs) using panoramic radiographs (PRs).MethodsWe examined 160 OMIs inserted bilaterally in the maxillary buccal alveolar bone between the second premolars and first molars of 80 patients (51 women, 29 men; mean age, 18.0 ± 6.1 years) undergoing treatment for malocclusion. The angulation and position of OMIs, as well as other parameters, were measured on PRs. The correlation between each measurement and the OMI success rate was then evaluated.ResultsThe overall success rate was 85.0% (136/160). Age was found to be a significant predictor of implant success (p < 0.05), while sex, side of placement, extraction, and position of the OMI tip were not significant predictors (p > 0.05). The highest success rate was observed for OMIs with tips positioned on the interradicular midline (IRML; central position). Univariate analyses revealed that the OMI success rate significantly increased with an increase in the OMI length and placement height of OMI (p = 0.001). However, in simultaneous analyses, only length remained significant (p = 0.027). Root proximity, distance between the OMI tip and IRML, interradicular distance, alveolar crest width, distance between the OMI head and IRML, and placement angle were not factors for success. Correlations between the placement angle and all other measurements except root proximity were statistically significant (p < 0.05).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that OMIs positioned more apically with a lesser angulation, as observed on PRs, exhibit high success rates.

Risk factors for orthodontic mini-implants in skeletal anchorage biological stability: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

“…In most of the studies mean patient age was around 25 years, samples generally consisting of predominantly young adults. Of the 26 articles, 7 were prospective studies [15][16][17][18][19][20][21] and 19 retrospective [11][12][13][14][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] . Follow-up periods ranged from approximately 18 months to 2 years.…”

“…As for length, the minimum length used was 5 mm 12 and the maximum 21 mm 13 . Among studies that provided information about the side on which mini-implants were placed (left or right), only one study placed the same number of mini-implants on both sides 18 ; in the other studies, the right side received higher number of www.nature.com/scientificreports www.nature.com/scientificreports/ mini-implants 17,22,31,34,35 . When mini-implant positions (vestibular, lingual/palatine, or crestal) were compared, the most usual position for mini-implant placement was the vestibular area 33 , with the exception of one article where a higher number of mini-implants were placed in lingual areas 11 .…”

“…www.nature.com/scientificreports www.nature.com/scientificreports/ between mini-implant failure and age. Some studies found no association between age and failure 14,15,32 , while others found that the patient's age could influence mini-implant failure because younger patients present finer cortical bone and lower bone density 19,[30][31][32][33][34] . (Fig.…”

Use of Mini-Implant Anchorage For Second Molar Mesialization: Comprehensive Approach For Treatment Efficiency Analysis

“…In our research, we positioned all miniimplants between premolars with 90-degree angulation to the bone surface. Based on previously reported results [29], such an approach of implant positioning could be the explanation of the fact that none of the installed implants was lost. The age parameter has not played any statistical role in the success rate of used mini-implants (p>0.05).…”

“…During the research of orthodontic microimplants by the results of panoramic radiographs, the authors found out that the length parameter of the anchorage device had a statistically important influence on the value of orthodontic implant success [29]. Intrabone implant anchorage positioned more apically and with a lower level of angulation demonstrated the highest results of success.…”