Clinical use of orthodontic mini-implants for intrusion and retraction: a systematic review

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480

DESCRIPTION

41
Reader(s)
50
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 36 , ISSUE 1 (May 2020) > List of articles

Clinical use of orthodontic mini-implants for intrusion and retraction: a systematic review

Sanjam Oswal * / Sanket S. Agarkar / Sandeep Jethe / Sujata Yerawadekar / Pradeep Kawale / Sonali Deshmukh / Jayesh S. Rahalkar

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 87-100, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-011

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 20-July-2021

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Background: Bimaxillary dental protrusion is common in many ethnic groups and is generally treated by the extraction of all first premolars. However, temporary anchorage devices (TADs) are currently gaining popularity and most studies have focused on anchorage loss, treatment duration, mini-implant success and failure rates, pain, discomfort and root resorption. Few studies have focused on the clinical effectiveness of implants for the intrusion and retraction of anterior teeth.

Objectives: To assess the clinical use of orthodontic mini-implants for the intrusion and retraction of anterior teeth.

Methods: A systematic review of articles selected from PUBMED and Google Scholar was carried out to determine the clinical use of orthodontic mini-implants for anterior tooth intrusion and retraction. Additional studies were hand searched to identify and include clinical trials, prospective and retrospective studies, while excluding finite element method (FEM) studies and case reports. A total of 598 articles were identified, of which 37 papers met the inclusion criteria and, following the elimination of duplicates, 20 articles were selected.

Results: Orthodontic mini-implants are more efficient for intrusion and retraction when compared to conventional intraoral and extra-oral anchorage devices. A greater amount of intrusion and retraction is achieved when mini-implants are placed between the first and second premolars without using any specific intrusive mechanics.

Conclusion: The present review highlights the clinical effectiveness of orthodontic mini-implants for anterior tooth intrusion and retraction and the results suggest that orthodontic mini-implants are more effective than other conventional methods of anchorage reinforcement.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of miniimplants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:18-29.e1.

2. Renfroe EW. The factor of stabilization in anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1956;42:86-97.

3. Costa A, Raffainl M, Melsen B. Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: a preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1998;13:201-9.

4. Sandler J, Murray A, Thiruvenkatachari B, Gutierrez R, Speight P, O’Brien K. Effectiveness of 3 methods of anchorage reinforcement for maximum anchorage in adolescents: A 3-arm multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2014;146:10-20.

5. Benson PE, Tinsley D, O’Dwyer JJ, Majumdar A, Doyle P, Sandler PJ. Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage—a randomized clinical trial: cephalometric results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:606-15.

6. Creekmore TD, Eklund MK. The possibility of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod 1983;17:266-9.

7. Jayaratne Y, Uribe F, Janakiraman N. Maxillary incisors changes during space closure with conventional and skeletal anchorage methods: a systematic review. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2017;51(3 Suppl 1):S90-S101.

8. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nanda R. Biomechanics of incisor retraction with mini-implant anchorage. J Orthod 2014;41 Suppl 1:S15-23.

9. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003;73:712-6.

10. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:377-84.

11. Deguchi T, Murakami T, Kuroda S, Yabuuchi T, Kamioka H, Takano-Yamamoto T. Comparison of the intrusion effects on the maxillary incisors between implant anchorage and J-hook headgear. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:654-60.

12. Yao CC, Lai EH, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:615-24.

13. Lai EH, Yao CC, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:636-45.

14. Chen M, Li ZM, Liu X, Cai B, Wang DW, Feng ZC. Differences of treatment outcomes between self-ligating brackets with microimplant and headgear anchorages in adults with bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147:465-71.

15. Lee AY, Kim YH. Comparison of Movement of the Upper Dentition According to Anchorage Method: Orthodontic Mini-Implant versus Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Class I Malocclusion. ISRN Dent 2011;2011:321206.

16. Park HM, Kim BH, Yang IH, Baek SH. Preliminary threedimensional analysis of tooth movement and arch dimension change of the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with first premolar extraction: conventional anchorage vs. miniimplant anchorage. Korean J Orthod 2012;42:280-90.

17. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: a clinical cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134:803-10.

18. Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36:687-95.

19. Liou EJ, Chang PM. Apical root resorption in orthodontic patients with en-masse maxillary anterior retraction and intrusion with miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:207-12.

20. Basha AG, Shantaraj R, Mogegowda SB. Comparative study between conventional en-masse retraction (sliding mechanics) and en-masse retraction using orthodontic micro implant. Implant Dent 2010;19:128-36.

21. Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2014;36:275-83.

22. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Nanda R. Dentoskeletal and soft tissue effects of mini-implants in Class II division 1 patients. Angle Orthod 2009;79:240-7.

23. Kim SH, Hwang YS, Ferreira A, Chung KR. Analysis of temporary skeletal anchorage devices used for en-masse retraction: a preliminary study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:268-76.

24. Liu H, Lv T, Wang NN, Zhao F, Wang KT, Liu DX. Drift characteristics of miniscrews and molars for anchorage under orthodontic force: 3-dimensional computed tomography registration evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;139:e83-9.

25. Lee KJ, Park YC, Hwang CJ, Kim YJ, Choi TH, Yoo HM et al. Displacement pattern of the maxillary arch depending on miniscrew position in sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011;140:224-32.

26. Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Uribe F, Nanda R. Miniimplants vs fixed functional appliances for treatment of young adult Class II female patients: a prospective clinical trial. Angle Orthod 2012;82:294-303.

27. Victor D, Prabhakar R, Karthikeyan MK, Saravanan R, Vanathi P, Vikram NR et al. Effectiveness of mini-implants in threedimensional control during retraction - a clinical study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8:227-32.

28. Jee JH, Ahn HW, Seo KW, Kim SH, Kook YA, Chung KR et al. Enmasse retraction with a preformed nickel-titanium and stainless steel archwire assembly and temporary skeletal anchorage devices without posterior bonding. Korean J Orthod 2014;44:236-45.

29. Monga N, Kharbanda OP, Samrit V. Quantitative and qualitative assessment of anchorage loss during en-masse retraction with indirectly loaded miniscrews in patients with bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2016;150:274-82.

30. Kojima Y, Kawamura J, Fukui H. Finite element analysis of the effect of force directions on tooth movement in extraction space closure with miniscrew sliding mechanics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:501-8.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS