Comparative evaluation of anchorage reinforcement between orthodontic implants and conventional anchorage in orthodontic management of bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion

Soft tissue changes with skeletal anchorage in comparison to conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients treated with premolar extraction : A systematic review

PURPOSE

This review systematically evaluates the evidence related to comparisons between skeletal and conventional anchorage protocols in the treatment of bimaxillary proclination patients who underwent premolars extraction with respect to soft tissue profile changes, treatment duration and three-dimensional (3D) soft tissue changes.

METHODS

Electronic database search and hand search with no language limitations were conducted in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Ovid, Web of Science, Scopus and ClinicalTrials.gov. The selection criteria were set to include studies with patients aged 13 years and above requiring extractions of upper and lower first premolars to treat bimaxillary proclination with high anchorage demand. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken with Cochrane's Risk Of Bias tool 2.0 (ROB 2.0) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS‑I tool for nonrandomised prospective studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used for quality assessment. Results were summarised qualitatively; no meta-analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Two RCTs and two nonrandomised prospective studies were included. According to the GRADE approach, there is low to very low quality of evidence that treatment using mini-implant anchorage may significantly change nasolabial angle, upper and lower lip procumbence, and facial convexity angle compared to treatment with conventional anchorage. Similarly, very low quality evidence exists showing no differences in treatment duration between treatments with skeletal or conventional anchorage.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall existing evidence regarding the effect of anchorage protocols on soft tissue changes in patients with bimaxillary protrusion and premolar extraction treatment plans is of low quality.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42020216684.

Comparison of treatment effects during en-masse retraction of upper anterior teeth placed using mini-implants placed at infrazygomatic crest and interradicular sites: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The objective of this prospective study was to examine the efficacy of posterior interradicular and infrazygomatic crest mini-implants for en-masse anterior retraction.

METHODS

The 22 patients were divided into two groups. In group 1 (IZC n = 11), mini-implants were placed in the infrazygomatic crests and in group 2 (IR, n = 11), mini-implants were placed in the molar-premolar interradicular sites. Soft tissue, skeletal, and dental treatment effects between two groups were compared using lateral cephalometric measurements.

RESULTS

The average angle between the cranial base and A point was 1.01 degrees (P = .004), and the linear distance between the upper incisor and A point was 2.67 to 5.2 millimetres (P = .00). In IZC group the maxillary incisor to the palatal plane moved upward by a mean of -5.20 mm (P = .059), whereas in IR group the incisor movement changed by -2.67 mm (P = .068). There was no significant difference between groups IZC and IR while comparing overall treatment changes on upper incisor position change, angle, and overjet.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-implants placed in between the molar and premolar as well as the infrazygomatic crest can withstand the deepening of the bite during retraction. Mini-implants in IZC are capable of causing intrusion of the anterior teeth and preventing intrusion of the molars, thereby providing absolute anchoring in all planes. Placement of the mini-implants in the infrazygomatic crest resulted in more linear retraction.

Effectiveness of micro-implant in vertical control during orthodontic extraction treatment in class II adults and adolescents after pubertal growth peak: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of micro-implant (MI) and conventional anchorage (CA) in vertical control during orthodontic extraction treatment of class II adults and adolescents after pubertal growth peak.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted through Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP, China Biology Medicine (CBM), and other sources, from inception to December 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were conducted. A meta-analysis concerning change of mandibular plane, vertical change of upper and lower molar, change of occlusal plane, SNB, chin position, and profile was carried out.

RESULTS

A total of 10,669 records were identified in the database search, and 19 studies (10 RCTs and 9 CCTs) were included in the final analysis. Compared with CA, MI significantly decreased mandibular plane angle and intruded upper molars. No significant difference was found in vertical change of lower molars, occlusal plane, SNB, chin position, and profile.

CONCLUSION

MI seems to be more effective than CA in vertical control during orthodontic extraction treatment of class II adults and adolescents after pubertal growth peak.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

MI should be given priority when considering the vertical control of class II patients, which is beneficial to the counterclockwise rotation of mandible or at least prevention of deterioration of the profile.

The Efficacy of Orthodontics plus Implant Anchorage in Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Study

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of orthodontics plus implant anchorage in orthodontic treatment.

Methods

This randomized controlled study was conducted on 90 patients who had orthodontic treatment in our hospital between October 2019 and October 2020, and they were assigned to either a control group (n = 45) or an observation group (n = 45) via the random number table method. Patients in the control group received orthodontics while those in the observation group underwent orthodontics plus implant anchorage. The two groups were compared in terms of clinical indexes, efficacy, orthodontic state, adverse reaction rate, quality of life, and satisfaction.

Results

After treatment, orthodontics plus implant anchorage led to lower gingival attachment level, gingival bleeding index, plaque index, and periodontal probing depth versus orthodontics alone (P < 0.05); orthodontics plus implant anchorage contributed to a higher efficacy versus orthodontics alone (91.11% vs. 73.33%, P < 0.05); orthodontics plus implant anchorage resulted in smaller molar displacement, larger protrusion distance of the upper central incisor, and larger inclination angle of the upper central incisor (P < 0.05); orthodontics plus implant anchorage was associated with fewer adverse reactions (4.44% vs. 26.67%, P < 0.05) and a higher quality of life scores versus orthodontics alone (P < 0.05); orthodontics plus implant anchorage yielded a higher satisfaction level versus orthodontics alone (95.56% vs. 66.67%, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The orthodontics plus implant anchorage offers a promising solution in orthodontic treatment. It is conducive to restoring dental indicators and improving quality of life and satisfaction. It is therefore worthy of application.

A Scoping Review about the Characteristics and Success-Failure Rates of Temporary Anchorage Devices in Orthodontics

This study synthesized the scientific evidence concerning the main characteristics of the Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs) used in orthodontics and reported the success-failure rates during treatment. For that means, this scoping review collected articles from previous research. A complementary search was carried out in the databases PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, LILACS, and EMBASE, focusing on original studies published from 2010 to 2020. We analyzed the main characteristics of the publications. As a result, 103 articles were included. Most of the research was conducted among different groups, who needed TADs principally in the maxilla and an interradicular location between the second premolar and first molar. AbsoAnchor, Dentos Inc., Daegu, Korea, was the most used brand of TADs. The most common characteristics of the devices and biomechanics were a diameter and length of 1.6 mm and 8 mm, a self-drilled system, a closed technique for placement, immediate loading, and forces that ranged between 40 and 800 g. Of the studies, 47.6% showed success rates ≥90%. In conclusion, high success rates were found for TADs, and differences were found according to sociodemographic and clinical variables. The studies showed variability in methodological design, and scientific publications were concentrated in certain countries. We recommend further scientific research on TADs using more standardized designs.

Effect of miniscrew insertion angle in the maxillary buccal plate on its clinical survival: a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

This study sought to assess the effect of miniscrew insertion angle (vertical and oblique) on its clinical survival under shearing forces in orthodontic patients undergoing canine retraction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial, 50 miniscrews were placed bilaterally in 25 patients with 45° and 90° insertion angles relative to a line perpendicular to the occlusal plane distal to the maxillary first premolar extraction site. Allocation of insertion angles to the right/left side was random using the Random Allocation Software. The patients, clinician, and statistician were blinded to the allocation of miniscrews to the side of jaw. The patients were followed-up monthly for 6 months. The primary outcome was the clinical survival of miniscrews, which was evaluated at each follow-up session. The secondary outcomes were the miniscrew stability based on the Periotest value (PTV) and the level of pain experienced by patients at 1, 12, and 24 h, and 7 days after miniscrew placement using a visual analog scale (VAS). Data were analyzed using paired t-test, repeated measures ANOVA, and McNemar's test.

RESULTS

The clinical survival rate of miniscrews placed at 90° and 45° angles was 76% and 88%, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.375). No significant difference was noted between the two groups regarding the PTV or the pain score either (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Clinically, the insertion angle of miniscrews (90° versus 45° relative to a line perpendicular to the occlusal plane) has no significant effect on the miniscrew survival rate or stability during orthodontic treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered at www.irct.ir ( IRCT20190901044659N1 ).

PROTOCOL

The protocol was published after trial commencement.

Treatment Effects and Lip Profile Changes Following Surgical Mandibular Advancement Versus Premolar Extractions in Class II Div 1 Malocclusion: A Randomized Controlled Trial

ABSTRACT

No randomized controlled trial has compared the treatment outcome between surgical mandibular advancement and premolar extractions in class II malocclusion. This 2-arm parallel randomized controlled trial evaluated the treatment effects and lip profile changes in skeletal class II adult patients subjected to bilateral sagittal split ramus osteotomy for mandibular advancement and those treated with premolar extractions. Seventy skeletal class II patients were accessed and forty-six subjects who fulfilled inclusion criteria were distributed randomly into Group CG (patients: 23, mean age: 21.28 ± 2.69 years) and Group SG (patients: 23, mean age: 21.15 ± 2.64 years). Group CG was subjected to extraction of maxillary first premolars and mandibular second premolars followed by implant supported space closure and Group SG was managed by surgical mandibular advancement. Skeletal, dental, and soft-tissue changes were analyzed. The study was single-blinded (statistical analyzer). Groups were closely matched for baseline parameters. In the present trial there was no loss to follow-up. Though overjet and overbite were optimized in both the groups but significant improvement was seen in surgical cases. Group CG demonstrated statistically significant point "A" remodeling, dentoalveolar changes, and increase in nasolabial angle. Group SG exhibited significant sagittal and vertical skeletal improvement and lip position change. Surgical mandibular advancement was found to be a better treatment modality compared to premolars extraction for managing skeletal class II div 1 malocclusion as it permits greater improvement of the profile and skeletal relationship.

Meta-analysis dataset comparing orthodontic mini-implants and conventional anchorage reinforcement for maximum orthodontic anchorage

The present article describes data from systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety outcomes comparing mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage reinforcement in patients with maximum dentoalveolar protrusion. All relevant RCTs and non-RCTs published up to 2018 were collected from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database. Thirteen studies assessing the effect of mini-implants were included, of which 4 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies. The efficacy parameters include mesiodistal movements of molars and incisors and vertical movements of molars and incisors. Whereas, the safety parameters were angular and linear measurement of soft tissue change. Subgroup analysis data was provided in terms of patients average age (<18 years and ≥18 years) at the initiation of treatment. This dataset is suitable for research purpose in the field of orthodontics and also helps dental doctors to determine their treatment preferences in the choice of anchorage reinforcement.

Comparison of Anchorage Efficiency of Orthodontic Mini-implant and Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Patients Requiring Maximum Orthodontic Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical effectiveness of mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage appliances used for orthodontic anchorage reinforcement in patients with class I or II malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for the search string: "skeletal anchorage", "temporary anchorage devices", "miniscrew implant", "mini-implant", "micro-implant". Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of horizontal and vertical movements of teeth from baseline were used for comparison.

RESULTS

A total of 12 studies were included in the final analysis. MI group significantly lowered mesial movement of molars compared to conventional anchorage group (SMD = -1.48, 95% CI = -2.25 to -0.72; P = .0002). There was significantly higher retraction of incisors in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = -0.47 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to -0.07; P = .02). No significant difference was seen in vertical movement of molars (SMD = -0.21 mm, 95% CI = -0.87 to 0.45; P = .52) and incisors (SMD = -0.30, 95% CI = -1.18 to 0.58; P = .5).

CONCLUSION

MIs seem to be more effective than the conventional anchorage devices in terms of minimizing unintended mesial movement of molars with maximum retraction of anterior teeth.

Biomechanical influence of anchorages on orthodontic space closing mechanics by sliding method

This study aims to analyse the stress distributions and initial displacements of teeth during the space closing stage through a three-dimensional finite element method. Computed tomography images of a patient were used to reconstruct the detailed teeth and alveolar bone, and brackets with stainless steel archwire were modelled according to the orthodontic prescriptions. The second premolars and first molars were chosen as the anchorages in the model 6-force, with buccal tubes attached to the second molars in the model 6-force-7, and the second molars as additional anchorages in the model 7-force. The results indicated that a movement of lingual lateral inclination occurred on the incisors during the retraction, and the frictional force between the teeth and the archwire significantly reduced the stress on the teeth and periodontal structures. Graphical abstract Malocclusion is one of the most common issue in dentistry with high prevalence and orthodontic treatment need. The extraction of first premolar teeth was normally needed at the beginning of the treatment. And the straight wire appliance together with the sliding mechanics was used for space closure at the end of the treatment. However, side effects like root resorption also found after the surgery. Biomechanically, the stress distributions and initial displacements of teeth during space closing stage might be a crucial factor contributed to those undesirable side effects. And different selections of anchorages might alter the biomechanical environment during the treatment. Thus, the purpose of the current study was to analyse the stress distributions and initial displacements, with the different anchorage selections, of teeth during space closing stage through 3D finite element method.

Soft Tissue Changes in Patients With Dentoalveolar Protrusion Treated With Maximum Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed at comparing the angular and linear changes of soft tissue profile using conventional anchorage techniques and mini-implant (MI)-based space closure in patients with dentoalveolar protrusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases, viz. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched for relevant literature from their inception to December 2017 according to the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for searching: "skeletal anchorage", "temporary anchorage devices", "miniscrew implant", "mini-implant", "micro-implant". Selected randomized control trials (RCTs) were assessed for their quality using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool, whereas the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for non-RCTs. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained with either fixed- or random-effects models based on the heterogeneity of the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 5 articles (2 RCTs with moderate risk of bias and 3 high-quality non-RCT studies) were included in the final analysis. The nasolabial angle had significantly greater changes in the MI group than in the conventional anchorage group (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.97, P < .0001). Significantly higher retraction of the upper lip was seen in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = -0.51, 95% CI = -0.84 to -0.18; P = .002). No significant difference was seen in the facial convexity (SMD = -0.34, 95% CI = -0.76 to 0.07, P = .106) and lower lip retraction (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI = -1.72 to 2.28, P = .784) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

It was seen that MIs facilitated favorable soft tissue profile than the conventional anchorage devices. However, more high-quality studies are warranted to confirm the clinical effectiveness of MIs.

Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/aim

Retraction of the upper incisors/canines requires maximum anchorage. The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy of mini implants in comparison to conventional devices in patients with need for en masse retraction of the front teeth in the upper jaw.

Material and methods

An electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE and hand searching were performed. Relevant articles were assessed, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. A random effects model, weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for horizontal and vertical anchorage loss at the first molars in the analyzed patient treatments.

Results

A total of seven RCTs employing direct anchorage through implants in the alveolar ridge were finally considered for qualitative and quantitative analysis, and further five publications were considered for the qualitative analysis only (three studies: indirect anchorage through implant in the mid-palate, two studies: direct/indirect anchorage in the alveolar ridge). In the control groups, anchorage was achieved through transpalatal arches, headgear, Nance buttons, intrusion arches, and differential moments.

WMD [95% CI, p] in anchorage loss between test and control groups amounted to − 2.79 mm [− 3.56 to − 2.03 mm, p < 0.001] in the horizontal and − 1.76 mm [− 2.56 to − 0.97, p < 0.001] favoring skeletal anchorage over control measures. The qualitative analysis revealed that minor anchorage loss can be associated with indirect anchorage, whereas anchorage gain was commonly associated with direct anchorage. Implant failures were comparable for both anchorage modalities (direct 9.9%, indirect 8.6%).

Conclusion

Within its limitations, the meta-analysis revealed that maximum anchorage en masse retraction can be achieved by orthodontic mini implants and direct anchorage; however, the ideal implant location (palate versus alveolar ridge) and the beneficial effect of direct over indirect anchorage needs to be further evaluated.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the failure rates of miniscrews related to their specific insertion site and explore the insertion site dependent risk factors contributing to their failure.

Search methods

An electronic search was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Knowledge, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed up to October 2017. A comprehensive manual search was also performed.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised clinical trials and prospective non-randomised studies, reporting a minimum of 20 inserted miniscrews in a specific insertion site and reporting the miniscrews’ failure rate in that insertion site, were included.

Data collection and analysis

Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Studies were sub-grouped according to the insertion site, and the failure rates for every individual insertion site were analysed using a random-effects model with corresponding 95% confidence interval. Sensitivity analyses were performed in order to test the robustness of the reported results.

Results

Overall, 61 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Palatal sites had failure rates of 1.3% (95% CI 0.3–6), 4.8% (95% CI 1.6–13.4) and 5.5% (95% CI 2.8–10.7) for the midpalatal, paramedian and parapalatal insertion sites, respectively. The failure rates for the maxillary buccal sites were 9.2% (95% CI 7.4–11.4), 9.7% (95% CI 5.1–17.6) and 16.4% (95% CI 4.9–42.5) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between maxillary first molars and second premolars and between maxillary canines and lateral incisors, and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress respectively. The failure rates for the mandibular buccal insertion sites were 13.5% (95% CI 7.3–23.6) and 9.9% (95% CI 4.9–19.1) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between mandibular first molars and second premolars and between mandibular canines and first premolars, respectively. The risk of failure increased when the miniscrews contacted the roots, with a risk ratio of 8.7 (95% CI 5.1–14.7).

Conclusions

Orthodontic miniscrew implants provide acceptable success rates that vary among the explored insertion sites. Very low to low quality of evidence suggests that miniscrews inserted in midpalatal locations have a failure rate of 1.3% and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress have a failure rate of 16.4%. Moderate quality of evidence indicates that root contact significantly contributes to the failure of interradicular miniscrews placed between the first molars and second premolars. Results should be interpreted with caution due to methodological drawbacks in some of the included studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40510-018-0225-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Anchorage in Orthodontics: Three-dimensional Scanner Input

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to re-evaluate anchorage coefficient values in orthodontics and their influence in the treatment decision through the usage of three-dimensional (3D) scanner.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A sample of 80 patients was analyzed with the 3D scanner using the C2000 and Cepha 3DT softwares (CIRAD Montpellier, France). Tooth anatomy parameters (linear measurements, root, and crown volumes) were then calculated to determine new anchorage coefficients based on root volume. Data were collected and statistically evaluated with the StatView software (version 5.0).

RESULTS

The anchorage coefficient values found in this study are compared to those established in previous studies. These new values affect and modify our approach in orthodontic treatment from the standpoint of anchorage.

CONCLUSION

The use of new anchorage coefficient values has significant clinical implications in conventional and in microimplants-assisted orthodontic mechanics through the selection and delivery of the optimal force system (magnitude and moment) for an adequate biological response.