Factors Affecting the Clinical Success Rate of Miniscrew Implants for Orthodontic Treatment

Jing, Zheng; Wu, Yeke; Jiang, Wenlu; Zhao, Lixing; Jing, Dian; Zhang, Nian; Cao, Xia; Zhang, Xu; Zhao, Zhihe

doi:10.11607/jomi.4197

Cited by 51 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in agreement with some studies 33,35 placement of mini-implants in the mandible could be a protective factor due to the mandible's higher bone density. (Fig.…”

Section: Summary Of Evidencesupporting

confidence: 89%

“…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.…”

Section: Results Of Individual Studies Meta-analysis and Additional mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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 .…”

Section: Results Of Individual Studies Meta-analysis and Additional mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…2) The variable sex was also subject to controversy. While some studies [12][13][14]30,31 claim that the patients' gender does not influence the success or failure of treatment with mini-implants, other works 33,35 found a higher mini-implant success rate among men, which they attributed due to their higher bone density. However, the present review did not generally find a significant association between sex and loss of secondary stability.…”

Section: Summary Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 98%

“…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.…”

Section: Summary Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Casaña-Ruiz

Bellot-Arcís

Paredes-Gallardo

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Montiel-company the reason of the biological stability loss of mini-implants is still a matter of discussion between dentistry professionals. the main objective of this systematic literature review and meta-analysis was to analyze the risk factors that prejudice this loss. A search was made in the electronic databases pubmed, Scopus, embase and cochrane, in addition a manual search was made too in Grey Literature (opengrey). no limits were set on the year of publication or language. the inclusion criteria were: studies in humans treated with fixed appliances with mini-implants, where the risk factors for secondary stability were evaluated for a minimum of 8 weeks. After eliminating duplicate studies and assessing which ones achieve the inclusion criteria, a total of 26 studies were selected for the qualitative synthesis, 18 of them were included in the quantitative synthesis. Common risk variables were compared in all of them. Analyzing the forest and funnel plots, statistically significant differences were obtained only for location, the upper maxilla having lower risk than the mandible with an odds ratio of 0.56 and confidence interval of 0.39 to 0.80. Prospective studies under controlled conditions should be required in order to obtain a correct assessment of the variables analyzed. The use of mini-implants to provide anchorage for force application has simplified and improved the efficacy of many orthodontic treatments, reducing unwanted movements of other teeth, especially in adult patients. For this reason, anchorage in bone is becoming a much more widely used technique 1. Mini-implants are made of titanium or stainless steel, their structure has three different parts: the top one (supra-gingival, which allows the anchor), the medium area or neck, and the thread, which is inserted inside the bone and provides mechanic anchor. Moreover, the most common types of mini-implants are: Mini Implant System (dbOrthodontics), Vector Temporary Anchorage System (Omco) and the Abso Anchor System (Dentos). All of them are available in different lengths (6-12 mm) and diameters (1-2 mm) 2. Mini-implants or TADs (Temporary Anchorage Devices) 2 have been used mainly as an auxiliary fixing method but more recently have been adopted for additional functions such as: mid-line or inclined plane alignment, space opening, or molar intrusion or extrusion 3. The increasing use of mini-implants is justified by its multiple advantages, the simplicity of the surgical technique, and low cost. Moreover, it is well accepted by patients and achieves success rates of 80-90% 4. While failure may be avoided by establishing the right therapeutic protocols, the fact that a percentage of mini-implants fail should not be overlooked. Stability refers to the resistance to reactive forces, offered by teeth or other oral or extraoral structures, that would lead to unwanted movements 5. In the case of mini-implants, two types of stability can be distinguished: primary and secondary. Primary stability is mechanical and is achieved by the mini-implant c...

show abstract

“…However, in agreement with some studies 33,35 placement of mini-implants in the mandible could be a protective factor due to the mandible's higher bone density. (Fig.…”

Section: Summary Of Evidencesupporting

confidence: 89%