Influence of interradicular and palatal placement of orthodontic mini-implants on the success (survival) rate

Abstract

BackgroundThe purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to investigate the success rates of orthodontic mini-implants (OMIs) placed in different insertion sites and to analyse patient and site- related factors that influence mini-implant survival.MethodsThree hundred eighty-seven OMIs were inserted in 239 patients for orthodontic anchorage and were loaded with a force greater than 2 N. Two different insertion sites were compared: 1. buccal inter-radicular and 2. palatal, at the level of the third palatal ruga. Survival was analysed for location and select patient parameters (age, gender and oral hygiene). The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.ResultsThe overall success rate was 89.1%. There were statistically significant differences between insertion sites; success rate was 98.4% for OMIs placed in the anterior palate and 71% for OMIs inserted buccal between roots (p < 0.001).ConclusionsSuccess rate of OMIs was primarily affected by the insertion site. The anterior palate was a more successful location compared to buccal alveolar bone.

RANK/RANKL/OPG gene polymorphisms and loss of orthodontic mini‐implants

“…MIs have become very popular among orthodontists, mainly because they are very effective devices in orthodontic treatments with high anchorage demand . The success rate of MIs in the sample studied (published in the study by Reichow et al) was 87.5%, very similar to other studies found in the literature, which reported the success rate as being greater than 80% …”

CAD-CAM–fabricated mini-implant insertion guides for the delivery of a distalization appliance in a single appointment

“…26 The alveolar process also has been shown to be inappropriate in cases of a desired molar distalization because the mini-implants are in the path of the moving teeth, resulting in a failure rate that is much higher compared with the anterior palate. 25,27 As such, the anterior palate seems to be the preferred insertion site for mini-implants where the treatment objective is distal movement of a maxillary first permanent molar without associated anchorage loss and maxillary incisor displacement. The advantage of skeletal anchorage is that maxillary and mandibular incisor proclination can be avoided.…”

“…23 Furthermore, good bone quality with thin attached mucosa implies minimal risk of toothroot injuries and a very high success rate in the anterior palatal region. [25][26][27] The failure rate of mini-implants in the anterior palate is reported to be 3.9%, which is significantly lower than in other regions. 25,27 However, many practitioners are not immediately familiar with the placement of implants in the anterior palate and may be reluctant to use them.…”

“…[25][26][27] The failure rate of mini-implants in the anterior palate is reported to be 3.9%, which is significantly lower than in other regions. 25,27 However, many practitioners are not immediately familiar with the placement of implants in the anterior palate and may be reluctant to use them. A mini-implant insertion guide can potentially assist clinicians to overcome their uncertainty, providing assurance that the optimal position, length, and angulation for the mini-implant has been predetermined for an individual patient with the use of a computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) platform.…”

Palatal temporary skeletal anchorage devices (TSADs): What to know and how to do?

“…studies have shown that the overall success rate of palatal miniscrews is greater than 90%, which was significantly higher than that of miniscrews in buccal inter-radicular space. 38,39 A recent metaanalysis showed that palatal sites had failure rates of 1.3%, 4.8% and 5.5% for the midpalatal, paramedian and parapalatal insertion sites, respectively. 40 Kakali et al 41 also reported a 6.1% median failure risk of palatal miniscrews in their systematic review of 10 studies.…”