L’ancrage squelettique au passé, présent et futur

Melsen, Birte; Dalstra, Michel

doi:10.1051/orthodfr/2016052

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Orthodontic implants can be loaded directly after insertion and are usually removed after treatment completion [ 17 , 36 ]. Therefore, orthodontic mini implants most often have a smooth surface to ease removal [ 32 ], whereas mini-plates are more invasive and require surgical intervention and flap preparation [ 6 ]. For this reason, orthodontic mini implants are frequently used, and two concepts are predominant: One is to stabilize a dental anchorage unit by connecting it to the implant (indirect anchorage), and the other is to directly load the orthodontic mini implant with the reactive forces (direct anchorage) [ 42 ].…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/aimRetraction of the upper incisors/canines requires maximum anchorage. The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy of mini implants in comparison to conventional devices in patients with need for en masse retraction of the front teeth in the upper jaw.Material and methodsAn electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE and hand searching were performed. Relevant articles were assessed, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. A random effects model, weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for horizontal and vertical anchorage loss at the first molars in the analyzed patient treatments.ResultsA total of seven RCTs employing direct anchorage through implants in the alveolar ridge were finally considered for qualitative and quantitative analysis, and further five publications were considered for the qualitative analysis only (three studies: indirect anchorage through implant in the mid-palate, two studies: direct/indirect anchorage in the alveolar ridge). In the control groups, anchorage was achieved through transpalatal arches, headgear, Nance buttons, intrusion arches, and differential moments.WMD [95% CI, p] in anchorage loss between test and control groups amounted to − 2.79 mm [− 3.56 to − 2.03 mm, p < 0.001] in the horizontal and − 1.76 mm [− 2.56 to − 0.97, p < 0.001] favoring skeletal anchorage over control measures. The qualitative analysis revealed that minor anchorage loss can be associated with indirect anchorage, whereas anchorage gain was commonly associated with direct anchorage. Implant failures were comparable for both anchorage modalities (direct 9.9%, indirect 8.6%).ConclusionWithin its limitations, the meta-analysis revealed that maximum anchorage en masse retraction can be achieved by orthodontic mini implants and direct anchorage; however, the ideal implant location (palate versus alveolar ridge) and the beneficial effect of direct over indirect anchorage needs to be further evaluated.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Сучасне ортодонтичне лікування часто потребує систем для скелетної фіксації, так як в ортодонтичній бiомеханiці має бути опора, вiдносно якої здійснюється переміщення [7][8][9][10][11]. Таким апаратам і способам фіксації надають перевагу, задля мінімізації впливу від протидії ор-тодонтичного апарату в момент прикладання сили на зуби пацієнта [11,12].…”

Section: стаття є фрагментом ндр кафедри ортодонтії зво полтавського ...unclassified

Analyzing Devices and Methods for Assessing the Primary Stability of Orthodontic Mini-Implants

Shaienko

2024

Act. Probl. of the Modern Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When disruptions occur in the mechanisms regulating the eruption of lower jaw molars, it becomes necessary to artificially extract and reposition them within the dentition. Various treatment methods are employed for this purpose, with the primary approach involving traction fixed to teeth or other anchorage elements and bone supports. Skeletal support is preferred to minimize resistance from orthodontic appliances when applying force to the patient's teeth. The utilization of mini-implants for anchorage demonstrates a relatively high success rate, though instances of failures and complications are not unheard of. Potential issues such as stability loss and mini-implant displacement may necessitate relocation or adjustments to treatment strategies, posing challenges for both practitioners and patients. Unlike dental implants, where secondary stability often dictates treatment success, primary stability holds paramount importance for orthodontic mini-implants. Investigating primary stability parameters can significantly impact treatment strategy selection and orthodontic mini-implant loading timelines. Focusing solely on mini-implant torque during placement is inadequate, as it fails to comprehensively gauge real stability. Moreover, the available range of torque indicators for orthodontic mini-implant placement is limited, typically ranging from 5ncm to 10 ncm. Furthermore, the selection of specialized devices for measuring primary stability is limited and necessitates meticulous evaluation.

show abstract

“…For orthodontists, it's always imperative to choose proper mechanics to prevent molars from unfavorable mesialization. For decades, orthodontists have been designing a variety of intraoral or extraoral appliances to preserve anchorage, such as Nance palatal arch [1], lower lingual arch [2], transpalatal arch [3], headgear [4], and TADs [5][6][7], etc. There are plenty of studies evaluating those appliances, and the amount of molar movement plays a key role and has become one of the most important standards.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Key Factors Contributing to The Anchorage Loss of Maxillary First Molars: A Retrospective Study of 726 Extraction Cases

Hong

Xu²,

Han

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Anchorage control is one of the key components in the treatment of extraction cases. However, why anchorage loss happens is still an unanswered question. The purpose of this study was to investigate the most important factors contributing to the anchorage loss of maxillary first molars in premolar extraction cases. The study enrolled 726 upper premolar extraction cases, including 214 male patients and 512 female patients, and the average age was 14 (range: 9-45 years old).Factors including physiological characteristics, treatment mechanics and cephalometric variables were collected and their influences on the angulation changes of maxillary first molars were analyzed. Results: The average angulation change of maxillary first molar after treatment was 2.81°, meaning the molar tipped forward during treatment by 2.81°. The change of UM/PP showed statistically significant difference in different sex ( male 3.84°±5.26 ° vs female 2.38°±5.10°), age (adult -0.05°±4.73 ° vs teenager 3.46°±5.07°), and molar relationship(Class II 3.28°±5.15°vs Class I 2.36°±5.19°). There are six variables accounted in the regression analysis (R=0.608, R²=37.0%). Among them, the pre-treatment molar tipping (Standardized Coefficients：-0.65) and the pre-treatment incisor/molar height ratio (Standardized Coefficients：-0.27)were the most important factors influencing anchorage loss during treatment.Conclusion: Compared with treatment-related factors, the patient’s physiological characteristics play a more important role in anchorage loss. The pre-treatment angulation of the maxillary first molar is the most contributing factor of the maxillary molar angulation changes, which are often predisposing anchorage loss.

show abstract

L’ancrage squelettique au passé, présent et futur

Cited by 7 publications

References 14 publications

Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Analyzing Devices and Methods for Assessing the Primary Stability of Orthodontic Mini-Implants

Key Factors Contributing to The Anchorage Loss of Maxillary First Molars: A Retrospective Study of 726 Extraction Cases

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About