Success rate of palatal orthodontic implants: a prospective longitudinal study

Abstract

Abstract:Aim:The purpose of this prospective cohort study was to assess the survival and success rates of palatal implants. Material and Methods:Seventy patients (56 female, 14 male; age 25-6 ±10-8 years) receiving Orthosystem® (Straumann, Basel AG, Switzerland) palatal implants from March 1999 to November 2006 were included. The indication was established according to the required anchorage for orthodontic therapy. All implants were placed in a mid-sagital, median or paramedian palatal location by the same surgeon. They were orthodontically loaded after a healing period of 8-16 weeks (Mean: 12.8 weeks). Results and Discussion:Of the initially 70 consecutively admitted patients, two implants in two patients were not primary stable after installation and had to be removed. Of the 70 initially installed palatal implants, 67 implants or 95.7 % osseointegrated successfully and were loaded actively and/or passively for approximately 19 months. Only 1 implant of the 67 osseointegrated implants lost its stability under orthodontic loading. By the time of re-evaluation, 20 palatal implants were still used for orthodontic therapy, while 46 implants had been removed after completed orthodontic therapy. By only analyzing those, the success rate of the initially installed implants was 92 %. Conclusions:Orthodontic palatal implants with a rough surface are predictable and highly reliable devices for a multitude of maxillary orthodontic treatment options. The survival and success rates for palatal orthodontic implants are comparable to dental implants installed for dental prostheses.

Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review

“…Two out of these were RCTs comparing palatal implants with conventional compliance‐dependent orthodontic anchorage (CDOA) (Sandler et al 2008) only or with CDOA and Onplants ® (Feldmann & Bondemark 2008). However, only one report evaluated the clinical outcome of a larger number of palatal implants (Männchen & Schätzle 2008). Data of a total of 190 palatal implants with a follow‐up time of at least 12 weeks up to more than 22 months or completion of the intended orthodontic treatment could be assessed.…”

“…At this point, a change in the treatment plan may be difficult or impossible. With respect to palatal implants, reports indicate that implant loss occurred predominantly in the unloaded healing period (Arcuri et al 2007; Männchen & Schätzle 2008; Sandler et al 2008). This in turn means that once a palatal implant is osseointegrated, no implant loss is to be expected.…”

Stability change of chemically modified sandblasted/acid‐etched titanium palatal implants. A randomized‐controlled clinical trial

“…Palatal implants, in contrast, are temporary anchorage devices and subsequently removed after therapy. Palatal implants represent the only implants in which Palatal implants represent therefore the only implants in which explantation are effected after clinical success (Männchen & Schätzle 2008). As they are removed along with a small amount of adjacent bone with a trephine after orthodontic loading, palatal implants may offer the potential of studying the early pattern of osseointegration in humans including later histological analysis.…”

“…Palatal implants, in contrast, are temporary anchorage devices and are therefore subsequently removed after therapy. As a consequence, their loading time is shorter and is defined by the preexisting treatment plan and the end of the need for additional anchorage (Männchen & Schätzle 2008). Palatal implants therefore represent the only implants in which explantations are affected after clinical success.…”

Minischrauben oder Gaumenimplantat?

“…Seit rund 2 Jahrzehnten haben Gaumenimplantate [1,2,6,9,10,18,22,24,26,27,29] und Minischrauben [5,8,16,17,19,21,25,29] als temporäre skelettale orthodontische Verankerungselemente Eingang in kieferorthopädische Behandlungskonzepte gefunden. Sie gehören mittlerweile im kieferorthopädischen Alltag zu einem fest etablierten Bestandteil für Patienten mit einem maximalen und stationären Verankerungsbedarf.…”