Cargando…

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Becker, Kathrin, Pliska, Annika, Busch, Caroline, Wilmes, Benedict, Wolf, Michael, Drescher, Dieter
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6200826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30357551
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4
_version_ 1783365402506559488
author Becker, Kathrin
Pliska, Annika
Busch, Caroline
Wilmes, Benedict
Wolf, Michael
Drescher, Dieter
author_facet Becker, Kathrin
Pliska, Annika
Busch, Caroline
Wilmes, Benedict
Wolf, Michael
Drescher, Dieter
author_sort Becker, Kathrin
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6200826
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-62008262018-11-05 Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis Becker, Kathrin Pliska, Annika Busch, Caroline Wilmes, Benedict Wolf, Michael Drescher, Dieter Int J Implant Dent Review 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. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2018-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6200826/ /pubmed/30357551 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Review
Becker, Kathrin
Pliska, Annika
Busch, Caroline
Wilmes, Benedict
Wolf, Michael
Drescher, Dieter
Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6200826/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30357551
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4
work_keys_str_mv AT beckerkathrin efficacyoforthodonticminiimplantsforenmasseretractioninthemaxillaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT pliskaannika efficacyoforthodonticminiimplantsforenmasseretractioninthemaxillaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT buschcaroline efficacyoforthodonticminiimplantsforenmasseretractioninthemaxillaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wilmesbenedict efficacyoforthodonticminiimplantsforenmasseretractioninthemaxillaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wolfmichael efficacyoforthodonticminiimplantsforenmasseretractioninthemaxillaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT drescherdieter efficacyoforthodonticminiimplantsforenmasseretractioninthemaxillaasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis