The application of mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage

Tseng, Yu-Chuan; Hsieh, Chi-Hsin; Chen, C.-H.; Shen, Yee-Shyong; Huang, I-Yueh

doi:10.1016/j.ijom.2006.02.018

Cited by 140 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 4 publications

(3 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…[1][2][3] The placement of miniscrews in the interradicular bone has been frequently recommended by the specialized literature for allowing simple placement and removal procedures, and for allowing the application of relatively simple force systems. 4,5 However, concerns about damaging dental roots, allied with the limited interradicular space, still represent a barrier for the clinical application of these miniscrews.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Safe Zones” for miniscrew implant placement in different dentoskeletal patterns

Chaimanee¹,

Suzuki²,

Suzuki³

2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the influence of different dentoskeletal patterns on the availability of interradicular spaces and to determine the safe zones for miniscrew implant placement. Materials and Methods: Periapical radiographs of 60 subjects with skeletal Class I, II, or III patterns were examined. For each interradicular site, the areas and distances at 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 mm from the alveolar crest were measured. Results: In the maxilla, the greatest interradicular space was between the second premolar and the first molar. In the mandible, the greatest interradicular space was between the first and second molars, followed by the first and second premolars. Significant differences in interradicular spaces among the skeletal patterns were observed. Maxillary interradicular spaces, particularly between the first and second molars, in the subjects with skeletal Class II patterns, were greater than those in the subjects with skeletal Class III patterns. In contrast, in the mandible, interradicular spaces in the subjects with skeletal Class III patterns were greater than those in the subjects with skeletal Class II patterns. Conclusions: For all skeletal patterns, the safest zones were the spaces between the second premolar and the first molar in the maxilla, and between the first and second premolars and between the first and second molars in the mandible. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:397-403.)

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Safe Zones” for miniscrew implant placement in different dentoskeletal patterns

Chaimanee¹,

Suzuki²,

Suzuki³

2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2,[6][7][8][9][10] However, the success rates of OMIs have been reported to range from 37% to 97%. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] Studies have found that the stability of OMIs is affected by age, sex, craniofacial skeletal pattern, site and side of implantation, latent period, loading protocol, dimension of OMI, angulation of OMI to bone, insertion torque, degree of OMI-bone contact, quality and quantity of the cortical bone, degree of inflammation of the peri-OMI tissue, thickness and mobility of the soft tissue, and root proximity. 6,14,15,[19][20][21][23][24][25][26] If an OMI fails, there are two options: reinstall a new one in the same area after 4 to 6 weeks or install a new one in an adjacent area immediately.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Success Rate and Risk Factors Associated with Mini-Implants Reinstalled in the Maxilla

Baek

Kim

Kyung

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To determine the difference in the success rate for two types of oral installed miniimplants (OMIs): one type of initially installed OMI and a new implant of the same type that is reinstalled. Materials and Methods: The subjects consisted of 58 patients (19 male, 39 female; mean age ϭ 21.78 Ϯ 5.85 years) who had received at least one OMI (self-drilling type, conical shape with 2.0-mm upper diameter and 5-mm length) in the attached gingiva of the upper buccal posterior regions for maximum anchorage during en masse retraction. If an OMI failed, a new one was immediately installed in the same area after 4 to 6 weeks or in an adjacent area immediately. The total number of initially installed OMIs (II-OMI) was 109 and the total number of reinstalled OMIs (RI-OMI) was 34. Statistical analysis was performed using 2 test, Kaplan-Meier method, log-rank test, and Cox proportional hazards regression model. Results:The success rate and mean duration were 75.2% and 10.0 months, respectively, for II-OMI and 66.7% and 6.4 months, respectively, for RI-OMI. Age, vertical skeletal pattern, and site and side of implantation were not related to the success rates of II-OMI and RI-OMI. Log-rank test showed that II-OMI in males and Class III malocclusions were more prone to failure. The relative risk of II-OMI failure in Class III malocclusions as opposed to Class I malocclusions was 5.36 (95% confidence interval, 2.008 to 14.31, P ϭ .001). Conclusion:The success rate of the II-OMI was not statistically different from that of the RI-OMI. Sex and ANB angle might be more important factors for better II-OMI results.

show abstract

“…They showed that the midpalatal and maxillary buccal molar areas (85.9%) had a higher success rate than the mandibular buccal molar (71.4%) and mandibular buccal canine areas (80.0%). Tseng et al 37) reported an overall success rate of 91.1%. They investigated risk factors for failure of mini-implants.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%