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
  • [31] Canine Impaction: Digital Orthodontic Planning in Conjunction with TADs (Temporary Anchorage Devices) and Aligners
    Capuozzo, Riccardo
    Caruso, Silvia
    Caruso, Sara
    De Felice, Maria Elena
    Gatto, Roberto
    APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2023, 13 (12):
  • [32] Intrusion of overerupted molars with temporary anchorage devices before prosthetic reconstruction: A case report
    Kucera, Josef
    Marek, Ivo
    Tomecek, Martin
    Foltan, Rene
    Foltanova, Barbara
    CLINICAL CASE REPORTS, 2022, 10 (07):
  • [33] Mandibular molar protraction: A comparison between fixed functional appliances and temporary anchorage devices
    Alshehri, Abdulrahman
    Abu Arqub, Sarah
    Betlej, Anna
    Chhibber, Aditya
    Yadav, Sumit
    Upadhyay, Madhur
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2024, 27 (05) : 714 - 723
  • [34] Temporary skeletal anchorage devices: The case for miniscrews
    Baumgaertel, Sebastian
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2014, 145 (05) : 558 - 564
  • [35] Failure of fixed orthodontic retainers: A systematic review
    Iliadi, Anna
    Kloukos, Dimitrios
    Gkantidis, Nikolaos
    Katsaros, Christos
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY, 2015, 43 (08) : 876 - 896
  • [36] Bone quality in the midpalate for temporary anchorage devices
    Wehrbein, Heinrich
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2009, 20 (01) : 45 - 49
  • [37] Mandibular effects of temporary anchorage devices in Class II patients treated with Forsus Fatigue Resistant Devices: A systematic review
    Xiang, Jie
    Yin, Yuanyuan
    Gan, Ziqi
    Shim, Sangbeom
    Zhao, Lixing
    AUSTRALASIAN ORTHODONTIC JOURNAL, 2021, 37 (01): : 50 - 61
  • [38] Success of palatal implants or mini-screws placed median or paramedian for the reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic treatment: a systematic review
    Kakali, Lydia
    Alharbi, Majed
    Pandis, Nikolaos
    Gkantidis, Nikolaos
    Kloukos, Dimitrios
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2019, 41 (01) : 9 - 20
  • [39] Anchorage effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrews compared to headgear and transpalatal arches: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Alharbi, Fahad
    Almuzian, Mohammed
    Bearn, David
    ACTA ODONTOLOGICA SCANDINAVICA, 2019, 77 (02) : 88 - 98
  • [40] Distalization Methods for Maxillary Molars Utilizing Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs): A Narrative Review
    Oguz, Firat
    Ozden, Samet
    Cicek, Orhan
    APPLIED SCIENCES-BASEL, 2024, 14 (23):