Failure rates for stainless steel versus titanium alloy infrazygomatic crest bone screws: A single-center, randomized double-blind clinical trial

Chang, Chris H.; Lin, Joshua; Roberts, W. Eugene

doi:10.2319/012518-70.1

Cited by 45 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mean age of participants ranged from 16.2 15 to 29.6 21 years. Great differences among the articles were observed regarding the number of MIs used that ranged from 10 14 to 386 22 per group. Only one study 14 did not describe the number of male/female subjects and the mean age of patients.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…All CCTs investigated interradicular MIs. Only one 22 study was a RCT that investigated extraalveolar MIs.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In two articles, 14,15 the MIs were installed mesially to the molars, whereas one 22 used extraalveolar MIs in the infrazygomatic crest. It was observed that the loading forces ranged according to the purpose of installation: for maxillary retraction, the highest load used was 227 to 397 g, 22 whereas the canine retraction required the lowest forces, 90 to 100 g. 15 Three studies 3,20,21 did not report the loading forces applied and did not standardize the installation sites and purposes of MI.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The RCT 22 exhibited a low RoB as a result of an adequate sample along with standardization of the site of installation, the force used, the follow-up time, and the purpose of use for the two groups. The evaluations of RoB for all included studies are presented in Tables 5 and 6.…”

Section: Rob Within Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Stainless steel or titanium mini-implants?

Mecenas¹,

Espinosa²,

Cardoso³

et al. 2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives To investigate whether there was a difference in success rates when stainless steel (SS) was compared to titanium mini-implants (MIs) in orthodontic patients. Materials and Methods PubMed, Cochrane, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, Google Scholar, Clinical Trials, and OpenGray were searched without restrictions. A manual search was also performed in the references of the included articles. Studies comparing the success rate between SS and titanium MIs were included. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions) Tool or RoB 2.0 according to the study design. The level of evidence was assessed through GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Results Six studies met the eligibility criteria. One study was a randomized clinical trial that evaluated extraalveolar MIs, and nonrandomized trials examined interradicular MIs. The RCT presented a low RoB, two nonrandomized trials presented a moderate risk, and three presented a high risk. The quality of the evidence was high for the randomized clinical trial and moderate for the nonrandomized trials. Most studies found no difference between materials, with good success rates for both (SS, 74.6%–100%; titanium: 80.9%–100%) and only one study, with a high RoB, showed a higher success rate with titanium MIs (90%) when compared with SS (50%). A quantitative analysis was not because of the great heterogeneity among the studies. Conclusions Although limited, the current evidence seems to show that the material used is not a major factor in the success rate of MIs. Because it has a lower cost than titanium and presents similar clinical efficiency, SS is a great material for orthodontic MIs.

show abstract

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…All CCTs investigated interradicular MIs. Only one 22 study was a RCT that investigated extraalveolar MIs.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Rob Within Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Stainless steel or titanium mini-implants?

Mecenas¹,

Espinosa²,

Cardoso³

et al. 2020

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reports suggest overall failure rates of micro-implants to be 13.5% [5] while bones screws to be -BSS (7.2%) [6] and IZC (7%). [7] Case Report 1: Class II Malocclusion Treated with Infra-Zygomatic Bone Screws Table 6].…”

Section: Complications and Success Rate Of Bone Screws As Compared Tomentioning

confidence: 99%

Infra-Zygomatic Crest and Buccal Shelf - Orthodontic Bone Screws: A Leap Ahead of Micro-Implants – Clinical Perspectives

Ghosh¹

2018

J Indian Orthod Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Absolute anchorage systems have stormed the world of orthodontics over the past two decades with its ability to produce skeletal anchorage, converting borderline surgical cases into non-surgical and extraction cases into non-extraction or even bringing about the esthetic impact which was difficult to achieve by conventional mechanics. Among the skeletal anchorage systems, the most popular being-miniimplants or micro-screws which have an intra-radicular site of placement. Their greatest advantage being the ease and minimally invasive methods of placement and the commonest disadvantage being early loosening during the course of treatment. A more rigid alternative was then introduced called as the SAS-Skeletal Anchorage Systems (I-plate, Y-plate etc) with its extra-radicular site of placement, which did overcome the high failure rates of a regular mini-implant but then their placement required raising of flaps and extensive surgical intervention. More recently an apt balance was achieved with the advent of the-Orthodontic Bone Screws (OBS) which not only had an extra-radicular site of placement in the infra-zygomatic crest of the maxilla and the buccal shelf area of the mandible, with significantly less failure rates than regular mini-implants but also doesn't require extensive surgical intervention for their placement. This article is aimed at providing an overview-to the recently introduced OBS system, their technical, bio material and bio-mechanical differences with the commonly used mini-implant system, the case selection criteria, advantages, disadvantages and an in-depth to the cases treated with them.

show abstract

Implant Site Selection

Baumgaertel

2020

Temporary Anchorage Devices in Clinical Orthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Failure rates for stainless steel versus titanium alloy infrazygomatic crest bone screws: A single-center, randomized double-blind clinical trial

Cited by 45 publications

References 20 publications

Stainless steel or titanium mini-implants?

Stainless steel or titanium mini-implants?

Infra-Zygomatic Crest and Buccal Shelf - Orthodontic Bone Screws: A Leap Ahead of Micro-Implants – Clinical Perspectives

Implant Site Selection

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About