Cargando…
Mini-implants in the palatal slope – a retrospective analysis of implant survival and tissue reaction
BACKGROUND: To identify insertion procedure and force application related complications in Jet Screw (JS) type mini-implants when inserted in the palatal slope. METHODS: Setting and Sample Population: The Department of Orthodontics, the University Hospital Münster. Forty-one consecutively started pa...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3546431/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23157849 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1746-160X-8-32 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND: To identify insertion procedure and force application related complications in Jet Screw (JS) type mini-implants when inserted in the palatal slope. METHODS: Setting and Sample Population: The Department of Orthodontics, the University Hospital Münster. Forty-one consecutively started patients treated using mini-implants in the palatal slope. In this retrospective study, 66 JS were evaluated. Patient records were used to obtain data on the mode of utilization and complications. Standardized photographs overlayed with a virtual grid served to test the hypothesis that deviations from the recommended insertion site or the type of mechanics applied might be related to complications regarding bleeding, gingival overgrowth or implant failure. RESULTS: Two implants (3%) were lost, and two implants (3%), both loaded with a laterally directed force, exhibited loosening while still serving for anchorage. Complications that required treatment did not occur, the most severe problem observed being gingival proliferation which was attributable neither to patients’ age nor to applied mechanics or deviations from the ideal implant position. CONCLUSIONS: The JS mini-implant is reliable for sagittal and vertical movements or anchorage purposes. Laterally directed forces might be unfavorable. The selection of implant length as well as the insertion procedure should account for the possibility of gingival overgrowth. |
---|