Cargando…

Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study

Mini-implants have undeniable advantages in Orthodontics. However, the use of mini-implants shows some limitations and disadvantages related to patient age, the quality of the bone tissue, the characteristics of the oral mucosa, implant site, the state of health of the organism and the quality of or...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bungău, Teodora Consuela, Vaida, Luminița Ligia, Moca, Abel Emanuel, Ciavoi, Gabriela, Iurcov, Raluca, Romanul, Ioana Mihaela, Buhaș, Camelia Liana
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9502099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36142978
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11185331
_version_ 1784795623989444608
author Bungău, Teodora Consuela
Vaida, Luminița Ligia
Moca, Abel Emanuel
Ciavoi, Gabriela
Iurcov, Raluca
Romanul, Ioana Mihaela
Buhaș, Camelia Liana
author_facet Bungău, Teodora Consuela
Vaida, Luminița Ligia
Moca, Abel Emanuel
Ciavoi, Gabriela
Iurcov, Raluca
Romanul, Ioana Mihaela
Buhaș, Camelia Liana
author_sort Bungău, Teodora Consuela
collection PubMed
description Mini-implants have undeniable advantages in Orthodontics. However, the use of mini-implants shows some limitations and disadvantages related to patient age, the quality of the bone tissue, the characteristics of the oral mucosa, implant site, the state of health of the organism and the quality of oral hygiene. The aim of this paper was to analyze the rejection rate of mini-implants in teenage patients, depending on their insertion site, and examine their stability up to three months after insertion. This retrospective study was conducted on dental charts belonging to patients aged between 12 and 17 years, from Oradea, Romania. The mini-implants were placed for various therapeutic reasons and were inserted in the following sites: buccal maxillary area, the infrazygomatic region, palatal area, buccal mandibular area and lingual area; they had a diameter of 1.6 mm (inter-radicular spaces) and of 2 mm (nonbearing tooth areas), and a length of 6–8 mm (mandible) or 8–10 mm (maxilla). The rejection rate was checked in the first month, second month, third month and after the third month from insertion. A total of 432 patients were included in the study, and they had a total of 573 mini-implants. Most implants were placed in the buccal region of the maxilla (27.7%), and most patients had one mini-implant placed (65.7%). The highest rejection rate was obtained in the first month (15.2%). The rejection rate between genders was similar. The mini-implants from the buccal mandibular region had a significantly higher rate of rejection in the first month (M1) in comparison to the mini-implants from the palatal region (24.4% vs. 8.3%). The mini-implants from the lingual region of the mandible had a significantly higher rate of rejection in the second month (M2) in comparison to the mini-implants from the infrazygomatic or the palatal region (10.5% vs. 0%/0%). Mini-implants are very useful for carrying out various orthodontic treatments, but their stability should be enhanced.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9502099
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95020992022-09-24 Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study Bungău, Teodora Consuela Vaida, Luminița Ligia Moca, Abel Emanuel Ciavoi, Gabriela Iurcov, Raluca Romanul, Ioana Mihaela Buhaș, Camelia Liana J Clin Med Article Mini-implants have undeniable advantages in Orthodontics. However, the use of mini-implants shows some limitations and disadvantages related to patient age, the quality of the bone tissue, the characteristics of the oral mucosa, implant site, the state of health of the organism and the quality of oral hygiene. The aim of this paper was to analyze the rejection rate of mini-implants in teenage patients, depending on their insertion site, and examine their stability up to three months after insertion. This retrospective study was conducted on dental charts belonging to patients aged between 12 and 17 years, from Oradea, Romania. The mini-implants were placed for various therapeutic reasons and were inserted in the following sites: buccal maxillary area, the infrazygomatic region, palatal area, buccal mandibular area and lingual area; they had a diameter of 1.6 mm (inter-radicular spaces) and of 2 mm (nonbearing tooth areas), and a length of 6–8 mm (mandible) or 8–10 mm (maxilla). The rejection rate was checked in the first month, second month, third month and after the third month from insertion. A total of 432 patients were included in the study, and they had a total of 573 mini-implants. Most implants were placed in the buccal region of the maxilla (27.7%), and most patients had one mini-implant placed (65.7%). The highest rejection rate was obtained in the first month (15.2%). The rejection rate between genders was similar. The mini-implants from the buccal mandibular region had a significantly higher rate of rejection in the first month (M1) in comparison to the mini-implants from the palatal region (24.4% vs. 8.3%). The mini-implants from the lingual region of the mandible had a significantly higher rate of rejection in the second month (M2) in comparison to the mini-implants from the infrazygomatic or the palatal region (10.5% vs. 0%/0%). Mini-implants are very useful for carrying out various orthodontic treatments, but their stability should be enhanced. MDPI 2022-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9502099/ /pubmed/36142978 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11185331 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Bungău, Teodora Consuela
Vaida, Luminița Ligia
Moca, Abel Emanuel
Ciavoi, Gabriela
Iurcov, Raluca
Romanul, Ioana Mihaela
Buhaș, Camelia Liana
Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study
title Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study
title_full Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study
title_fullStr Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study
title_full_unstemmed Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study
title_short Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study
title_sort mini-implant rejection rate in teenage patients depending on insertion site: a retrospective study
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9502099/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36142978
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11185331
work_keys_str_mv AT bungauteodoraconsuela miniimplantrejectionrateinteenagepatientsdependingoninsertionsitearetrospectivestudy
AT vaidaluminitaligia miniimplantrejectionrateinteenagepatientsdependingoninsertionsitearetrospectivestudy
AT mocaabelemanuel miniimplantrejectionrateinteenagepatientsdependingoninsertionsitearetrospectivestudy
AT ciavoigabriela miniimplantrejectionrateinteenagepatientsdependingoninsertionsitearetrospectivestudy
AT iurcovraluca miniimplantrejectionrateinteenagepatientsdependingoninsertionsitearetrospectivestudy
AT romanulioanamihaela miniimplantrejectionrateinteenagepatientsdependingoninsertionsitearetrospectivestudy
AT buhascamelialiana miniimplantrejectionrateinteenagepatientsdependingoninsertionsitearetrospectivestudy