Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review

被引:179
|
作者
Schaetzle, Marc [1 ,2 ]
Maennchen, Roland [1 ]
Zwahlen, Marcel [3 ,4 ]
Lang, Niklaus P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Clin Orthodont & Pediat Dent, Ctr Dent & Oral Med & Craniomaxillofacial Surg, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland
[2] Univ Hong Kong, Fac Dent, Prince Philip Dent Hosp, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Bern, Res Support Unit, Inst Social & Prevent Med, Bern, Switzerland
[4] Univ Hosp Bern, CTU Bern, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland
关键词
failure; human; skeletal anchorage; survival; systematic review; MINI-IMPLANTS; SUCCESS RATE; SKELETAL ANCHORAGE; PREMOLAR EXTRACTION; CLINICAL-EVALUATION; PALATAL IMPLANTS; MINISCREWS; PLACEMENT; STABILITY; EXPERIENCE;
D O I
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01754.x
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on the survival rates of palatal implants, Onplants (R), miniplates and mini screws. Material and methods An electronic MEDLINE search supplemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies on palatal implants, Onplants (R), miniplates and miniscrews with a mean follow-up time of at least 12 weeks and of at least 10 units per modality having been examined clinically at a follow-up visit. Assessment of studies and data abstraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Reported failures of used devices were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of failure and survival proportions. Results The search up to January 2009 provided 390 titles and 71 abstracts with full-text analysis of 34 articles, yielding 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In meta-analysis, the failure rate for Onplants (R) was 17.2% (95% CI: 5.9-35.8%), 10.5% for palatal implants (95% CI: 6.1-18.1%), 16.4% for miniscrews (95% CI: 13.4-20.1%) and 7.3% for miniplates (95% CI: 5.4-9.9%). Miniplates and palatal implants, representing torque-resisting temporary anchorage devices (TADs), when grouped together, showed a 1.92-fold (95% CI: 1.06-2.78) lower clinical failure rate than miniscrews. Conclusion Based on the available evidence in the literature, palatal implants and miniplates showed comparable survival rates of >= 90% over a period of at least 12 weeks, and yielded superior survival than miniscrews. Palatal implants and miniplates for temporary anchorage provide reliable absolute orthodontic anchorage. If the intended orthodontic treatment would require multiple miniscrew placement to provide adequate anchorage, the reliability of such systems is questionable. For patients who are undergoing extensive orthodontic treatment, force vectors may need to be varied or the roots of the teeth to be moved may need to slide past the anchors. In this context, palatal implants or miniplates should be the TADs of choice. To cite this article:Schatzle M, Mannchen R, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 20, 2009; 1351-1359.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01754.x.
引用
收藏
页码:1351 / 1359
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] A Scoping Review about the Characteristics and Success-Failure Rates of Temporary Anchorage Devices in Orthodontics
    Jaramillo-Bedoya, Daniel
    Villegas-Giraldo, Gustavo
    Agudelo-Suarez, Andres A.
    Ramirez-Ossa, Diana Milena
    DENTISTRY JOURNAL, 2022, 10 (05)
  • [2] Factors affecting the clinical success of orthodontic anchorage: Experience with 266 temporary anchorage devices
    Lai, Tai-Ting
    Chen, Min-Huey
    JOURNAL OF DENTAL SCIENCES, 2014, 9 (01) : 49 - 55
  • [3] Oral microbiome contributes to the failure of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices (TADs)
    Zhao, Ningrui
    Zhang, Qian
    Guo, Yanning
    Cui, Shengjie
    Tian, Yajing
    Zhang, Yidan
    Zhou, Yanheng
    Wang, Xuedong
    BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [4] AN UMBRELLA REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEMPORARY ANCHORAGE DEVICES AND THE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR SUCCESS OR FAILURE
    Milena Ramirez-Ossa, Diana
    Escobar-Correa, Natalia
    Antonia Ramirez-Bustamante, Maria
    Agudelo-Suarez, Andres A.
    JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2020, 20 (02)
  • [5] Acceptance of orthodontic miniscrews as temporary anchorage devices
    Zawawi, Khalid H.
    PATIENT PREFERENCE AND ADHERENCE, 2014, 8 : 933 - 937
  • [6] Orthodontic Intrusion Using Temporary Anchorage Devices Compared to Other Orthodontic Intrusion Methods: A Systematic Review
    AlMaghlouth, Basma
    AlMubarak, Aqilah
    Almaghlouth, Ibrahim
    AlKhalifah, Reem
    Alsadah, Amal
    Hassan, Ali
    CLINICAL COSMETIC AND INVESTIGATIONAL DENTISTRY, 2021, 13 : 11 - 19
  • [7] Endodontic complications associated with orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: A systematic review of human studies
    Rossi-Fedele, Giampiero
    Franciscatto, Gisele Jung
    Marshall, Georgina
    Gomes, Maximiliano Schuenke
    Dogramaci, Esma J.
    AUSTRALIAN ENDODONTIC JOURNAL, 2020, 46 (01) : 115 - 122
  • [8] Implants for Orthodontic Anchorage: Success Rates and Reasons of Failures
    Rodriguez, Juan C.
    Suarez, Fernando
    Chan, Hsun-Liang
    Padial-Molina, Miguel
    Wang, Hom-Lay
    IMPLANT DENTISTRY, 2014, 23 (02) : 155 - 161
  • [9] MODERN ANCHORAGE DEVICES IN ORTHODONTIC THERAPY: A LITERATURE REVIEW
    Romanec, C.
    Feier, Ramona
    Panaite, Tinela
    Reda, Baidouri
    Savin, Carmen
    MEDICAL-SURGICAL JOURNAL-REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALA, 2019, 123 (03): : 522 - 530
  • [10] Corrosion of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices
    Knutson, Kevin J.
    Berzins, David W.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2013, 35 (04) : 500 - 506