Failure rates and factors associated with infrazygomatic crestal orthodontic implants - A prospective study

Gill, Gauri; Shashidhar, Keerthan; Kuttappa, M N; B, Dhyan Kushalappa P; Sivamurthy, Gautham; Mallick, Soham

doi:10.1016/j.jobcr.2023.02.010

Cited by 5 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…53 The higher failure rate occurs more frequently in the mandible than the maxilla. 42,54 Five studies in this review showed the failure rate higher in mandible as well as Miyawaki et al, 43 Park et al, 46 and Wiechmann et al, 55 all found implants to be more successful in the maxilla, as maxilla has greater amount of keratinized tissue, less demanding surgical procedures, and greater vascularization as compared to the mandible. Similar to the others, Papageorgiou et al also reported that significantly higher failure rate occurs in the mandible (28.2%) compared to the maxilla (11.8%).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 68%

“…Mini-implant failure can occur due to poor oral hygiene. The results of Azeem et al, 12 Aly et al, 22 Uribe et al, 19 Azeem et al, 69 Sreenivasagan et al, 30 and Gill et al 42 showed a greater failure rate in patients with poor oral conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Several studies reported a higher failure rate in patients with poor oral hygiene. 12 22 30 42 Oral hygiene is known to be a local risk factor for mini-implant failure since mini-implant stability depends on adequate oral hygiene. 43 44 Similar to the studies in this review, Sharma et al 45 also reported that mini-implant loss related to poor oral hygiene and local inflammation; meanwhile according to Park et al 46 , oral hygiene played no role, but local inflammation around the mini-implants does.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…58 According to Chen et al, inflammation control and delayed loading were still necessary for mini-implants to achieve sufficient primary stability even after 3 weeks of healing, although osseointegration was not required at this stage. 59 Gill et al 42 concluded that loading of the mini-implant should be done after a latent period of 2 weeks. However, Nkenke et al found no differences in daily bone apposition, bone-implant contact, and bone density in the presence or absence of early loading.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…73 Gill et al study compared implant failure with immediate and delayed time till loading showed a 100% success rate in delayed loaded implant group (after 2 weeks) compared to loaded immediately (60.9%). 42 According to Papageorgiou et al, in most cases, premature loading leads to healing by forming fibrous tissue between the bone and the miniimplant. 20…”

Section: Forcementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

The Orthodontic Mini-Implants Failures Based on Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review

Tarigan,

Sufarnap,

Bahirrah

2023

Eur J Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anchorage is a challenge and essential issue for an orthodontist in determining the success of orthodontic treatment. Orthodontic anchorage is defined as resistance to unwanted tooth movement. Mini-implant is one of the devices that can be used as an anchor in orthodontic treatment. Many cases have reported successful treatment using mini-implant, but there are cases where mini-implants may fail. Failure of mini-implants can affect orthodontic treatment, and it is known that several factors may lead to mini-implant loss in orthodontic treatment. This systematic review aimed to determine the factors influencing mini-implant failure in orthodontic treatment. Articles were selected from electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, The Cochrane Library, ScienceDirect) from January 2015 until 2023 according to the PRISMA method (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) under the PEOS (Population-Exposure-Outcome-StudyType) framework questions for systematic review. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42022337684). All data collected were in English, and filtering was done by eliminating duplicate data, meta-analysis, case reports, case series, mini-reviews, and animal studies. The analysis was further divided into three groups, that is, patient-related, implant-related, and operator-related and operator-related (A graphical abstract provided as a Supplementary information [available in the online version]). Twenty-one articles were identified according to the inclusion criteria in the form of retrospective, prospective, in vivo, and randomized controlled trial studies. Mini-implant failures due to patient-related showed six etiological factors, failures due to implant-related had eight etiological factors, and only one factor was operator-related, which may lead to mini-implant failure. The data was extracted without a computerized system and only in English. Mini-implant failure can be caused by many factors; we could not accuse one major factor as a cause. However, the quality or condition of the bones and oral hygiene are factors that play a significant role in obtaining the stability of implants. Mini-implant failure is highly influenced by poor oral hygiene and peri-implant inflammation. Comprehensive diagnostic prior to mini-implant insertion should be appropriately considered. This systematic review describes several factors that can influence mini-implant failure, divided into three groups: patient-related, implant-related, and operator-related (A graphical abstract provided as a Supplementary information [available in the online version]).

show abstract