Loss of anchorage of miniscrews: A 3-dimensional assessment

El-Beialy, Amr Ragab; Abouelezz, Amr M.; Attia, Khaled; Elbialy, A.; Mostafa, Yehya A.

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.10.059

Cited by 67 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Miniscrews have been shown as relatively stable rather than absolute anchorage. 30,31 Therefore, ''rigid'' or ''absolute'' is not appropriate. ''Bone'' or ''skeletal'' is not appropriate either because ''TAD,'' which includes osseointegrated implants, miniplates, onplants, and miniscrews, is just in contrast to ''tooth,'' both of which are seated in ''bone'' and used as the point of force application for MP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition

Feng

Liu

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of temporary anchorage device (TAD)-anchored maxillary protraction (MP) in terms of the skeletal and dentoalveolar changes and to compare it with traditional tooth-anchored MP. Materials and Methods: A computerized literature search for relative randomized controlled trials and prospective controlled trials was performed in PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, CNKI, and Google Scholar, complemented with manual search. Data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was followed when possible; otherwise, description was done. Results: Forty articles were found, among which four trials were qualified for meta-analysis. The results showed that there was significant difference between TAD-anchored MP and untreated control in terms of maxillary advancement (weighted mean differences (WMD) 3.08 mm; 95% CI: 1.61 to approximately 4.56; P , .0001), but there were no consistent points in terms of mandibular rotation. Also, there were significant differences between both treatment patterns regarding maxillary advancement (WMD 1.41 mm; 95% CI: 0.47 to approximately 2.35; P 5 .003), mandibular rotation (WMD 21.39u, 95% CI: 22.47 to approximately 20.31; P 5 .01), proclination of maxillary incisors (WMD 22.29u; 95% CI: 24.41 to approximately 20.17; P 5 .03), and extrusion of maxillary molars (WMD 21.68 mm; 95% CI: 22.51 to approximately 20.85; P , .0001). Conclusions: According to the present results, TAD-anchored MP might have a greater maxillary advancement effect and might reduce skeletal and dental side effects, compared with toothanchored MP.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition

Feng

Liu

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2,7,18,25,32,[35][36][37]39,40,44,49,[52][53][54]59 More specifically, in our investigation higher overall MI failure rates were observed in the mandible (19.3%) than the maxilla (12.0%). 2,7,18,25,32,[35][36][37]39,40,44,49,[52][53][54]59 More specifically, in our investigation higher overall MI failure rates were observed in the mandible (19.3%) than the maxilla (12.0%).…”

Section: Jaw Of Placementmentioning

confidence: 49%

“…33,54,59,48 More specifically, root contact during insertion increased failure rates to 29.9%, from 7.8% for no root contact (p < 0.001). 33,54,59,48 More specifically, root contact during insertion increased failure rates to 29.9%, from 7.8% for no root contact (p < 0.001).…”

Section: Root Contactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Success rates and risk factors of miniscrew implants used as temporary anchorage devices for orthodontic purposes

Papadopoulos¹,

Papageorgiou²,

Zogakis³

2015

Skeletal Anchorage in Orthodontic Treatment of Class II Malocclusion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…51,52 However, in every study that quoted the maximum displacement, the values were at least 1.0 mm ranging up to 5.5 mm. 30,51,58,62,63 Therefore, the clinician must expect significant displacement.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The aim of planning should be to provide a maximum range of action for the mini-implant, especially when long loading periods are necessary. 62 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review of mini-implant displacement under orthodontic loading

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing number of studies have reported that mini-implants do not remain in exactly the same position during treatment, although they remain stable. The aim of this review was to collect data regarding primary displacement immediately straight after loading and secondary displacement over time. A systematic review was performed to investigate primary and secondary displacement. The amount and type of displacement were recorded. A total of 27 studies were included. Sixteen in vitro studies or studies using finite element analysis addressed primary displacement, and nine clinical studies and two animal studies addressed secondary displacement. Significant primary displacement was detected (6.4–24.4 µm) for relevant orthodontic forces (0.5–2.5 N). The mean secondary displacement ranged from 0 to 2.7 mm for entire mini-implants. The maximum values for each clinical study ranged from 1.0 to 4.1 mm for the head, 1.0 to 1.5 for the body and 1.0 to 1.92 mm for the tail part. The most frequent type of movement was controlled tipping or bodily movement. Primary displacement did not reach a clinically significant level. However, clinicians can expect relevant secondary displacement in the direction of force. Consequently, decentralized insertion within the inter-radicular space, away from force direction, might be favourable. More evidence is needed to provide quantitative recommendations.

show abstract

Loss of anchorage of miniscrews: A 3-dimensional assessment

Cited by 67 publications

References 22 publications

Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition

Effectiveness of TAD-anchored maxillary protraction in late mixed dentition

Success rates and risk factors of miniscrew implants used as temporary anchorage devices for orthodontic purposes

Systematic review of mini-implant displacement under orthodontic loading

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About