Cargando…

One palatal implant for skeletal anchorage – frequency and range of indications

OBJECTIVE: Aim of this investigation was to analyze the frequency and range of indications of orthodontic treatments using one palatal implant for skeletal anchorage, in a time frame of four years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample was comprised by viewing retrospectively the patient collective of a sp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Krieger, Elena, Yildizhan, Zeynep, Wehrbein, Heinrich
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4407421/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25895493
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13005-015-0073-x
Descripción
Sumario:OBJECTIVE: Aim of this investigation was to analyze the frequency and range of indications of orthodontic treatments using one palatal implant for skeletal anchorage, in a time frame of four years. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sample was comprised by viewing retrospectively the patient collective of a specialized university clinic who started orthodontic treatment in the time frame 01/09-12/12. Inclusion criterion was the first application of a superstructure within the investigated period after successful insertion of a palatal implant (Ortho-System®, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland). Frequency and range of indications of the conducted skeletally anchored tooth movement were determined by analyzing the individual patient documentation such as medical records, radiographs and casts. RESULTS: From a total of 1350 patients who started orthodontic treatment in this period met 56 (=4.2%) the inclusion criterion. In 85.7% of this sample was sagittal orthodontic tooth movement conducted, most frequently mesialization of ≥1 tooth (44.6%). Vertical tooth movement was in 57.1% of the sample performed, mostly extrusion of ≥1 tooth (34%). In 33.9% of the sample was ≥1 displaced tooth orthodontically relocated. One or two upper incisors were in 16.1% of the sample permanently replaced by the superstructure, all but one even after orthodontic treatment. In 66.1% of all cases were multi-functional anchorage challenges performed. CONCLUSION: 4.2 % of all treated patients within the investigated period required orthodontic treatment with skeletal anchorage (palatal implant), mainly for performing sagittal tooth movement (mesialization). The palatal implant was primarily used for multi-functional anchorage purposes, including skeletally anchored treatment in the mandible.