Indikationsspektrum von Gaumenimplantaten bei früh- und spätbelasteten Behandlungskonzepten

Jung, Britta A.; Harzer, Winfried; Gedrange, Tomasz; Kunkel, Martin; Moergel, Maximilian; Diedrich, Peter; Lüdicke, Gabriele; Wehrbein, Heinrich

doi:10.1007/s00056-010-1007-7

Cited by 10 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding the single indications, most frequently sagittal tooth movements were conducted (in 85.7% of the sample). This is similar to the findings of Jung et al [ 7 ]. They reported in their RCT study of the spectrum of indications for PIs in treatment concepts involving immediate and conventional loading.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Skeletal anchorage for orthodontic treatment purposes has been part of many investigations [ 1 , 9 - 11 ]. Especially torque-resisting TADs (PI and BA) revived interest in [ 3 , 5 - 7 , 22 ] and the anterior palate as an insertion site, even for MS [ 8 , 12 ]. About several indications has been reported [ 7 , 8 , 12 ], in case reports [ 13 , 14 ], in reviews [ 15 , 16 ] or experts opinions [ 17 - 21 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previously, various investigations reported about failure or survival rates [ 1 , 3 , 9 ], regarding individual techniques of insertion [ 10 ] or fabricate design [ 11 ]. About several indications for orthodontic treatment with skeletal anchorage has been reported [ 7 , 8 , 12 ], often described in case reports [ 13 , 14 ] and discussed in reviews [ 15 , 16 ] or experts opinions [ 17 - 21 ]. But nevertheless, it has not yet been clarified in how many cases the use of skeletal anchorage is actually necessary and when, which indications should to be placed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

One palatal implant for skeletal anchorage – frequency and range of indications

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveAim of this investigation was to analyze the frequency and range of indications of orthodontic treatments using one palatal implant for skeletal anchorage, in a time frame of four years.Material and methodsA sample was comprised by viewing retrospectively the patient collective of a specialized university clinic who started orthodontic treatment in the time frame 01/09-12/12. Inclusion criterion was the first application of a superstructure within the investigated period after successful insertion of a palatal implant (Ortho-System®, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland). Frequency and range of indications of the conducted skeletally anchored tooth movement were determined by analyzing the individual patient documentation such as medical records, radiographs and casts.ResultsFrom a total of 1350 patients who started orthodontic treatment in this period met 56 (=4.2%) the inclusion criterion. In 85.7% of this sample was sagittal orthodontic tooth movement conducted, most frequently mesialization of ≥1 tooth (44.6%). Vertical tooth movement was in 57.1% of the sample performed, mostly extrusion of ≥1 tooth (34%). In 33.9% of the sample was ≥1 displaced tooth orthodontically relocated. One or two upper incisors were in 16.1% of the sample permanently replaced by the superstructure, all but one even after orthodontic treatment. In 66.1% of all cases were multi-functional anchorage challenges performed.Conclusion4.2 % of all treated patients within the investigated period required orthodontic treatment with skeletal anchorage (palatal implant), mainly for performing sagittal tooth movement (mesialization). The palatal implant was primarily used for multi-functional anchorage purposes, including skeletally anchored treatment in the mandible.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

One palatal implant for skeletal anchorage – frequency and range of indications

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, it provides good bony support [1,5-7]. Median and paramedian insertion as well as various mechanics have been described [4,8-13]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mini-implants in the palatal slope – a retrospective analysis of implant survival and tissue reaction

Ziebura

Wiechmann

2012

Head Face Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundTo identify insertion procedure and force application related complications in Jet Screw (JS) type mini-implants when inserted in the palatal slope.MethodsSetting and Sample Population: The Department of Orthodontics, the University Hospital Münster. Forty-one consecutively started patients treated using mini-implants in the palatal slope. In this retrospective study, 66 JS were evaluated. Patient records were used to obtain data on the mode of utilization and complications. Standardized photographs overlayed with a virtual grid served to test the hypothesis that deviations from the recommended insertion site or the type of mechanics applied might be related to complications regarding bleeding, gingival overgrowth or implant failure.ResultsTwo implants (3%) were lost, and two implants (3%), both loaded with a laterally directed force, exhibited loosening while still serving for anchorage. Complications that required treatment did not occur, the most severe problem observed being gingival proliferation which was attributable neither to patients’ age nor to applied mechanics or deviations from the ideal implant position.ConclusionsThe JS mini-implant is reliable for sagittal and vertical movements or anchorage purposes. Laterally directed forces might be unfavorable. The selection of implant length as well as the insertion procedure should account for the possibility of gingival overgrowth.

show abstract

“…Insertion beyond the attached gingiva may also lead to an increased failure rate [6]. The palate as a skeletal anchorage site has been described by several authors and for different treatment tasks [7,8]. It offers good bone support [9-11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A simplified approach to true molar intrusion

Ziebura

Kleinheinz

et al. 2012

Head Face Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOrthodontic management of anterior open bites is a demanding task for orthodontists. Molar intrusion as a primary means of open bite correction entails the need for appropriate anchorage. Orthodontic mini implants can provide the required mechanical support. The suggested procedure aims to reduce the risk of complications such as root damage or soft tissue irritations while minimizing overall complexity.MethodsThree female patients aged 14, 18 and 19 years who decided against a surgical correction were treated with a device consisting of mini implants in the palatal slope, a palatal bar and intrusion cantilevers.ResultsIn all three patients, an open bite reduction of more than a millimeter occurred within four months. An anterior overbite of 2 mm or more could be established within 6 to 9 months.ConclusionsThe method presented in this article enables the practitioner to use mini implants in an easily accessible insertion site. A lab-side procedure is optional but not required.

show abstract

Indikationsspektrum von Gaumenimplantaten bei früh- und spätbelasteten Behandlungskonzepten

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

One palatal implant for skeletal anchorage – frequency and range of indications

One palatal implant for skeletal anchorage – frequency and range of indications

Mini-implants in the palatal slope – a retrospective analysis of implant survival and tissue reaction

A simplified approach to true molar intrusion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About