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
  • [41] Mini-screw implants (temporary anchorage devices): orthodontic and pre-prosthetic applications
    Mizrahi, Eliakim
    Mizrahi, Basil
    JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2007, 34 (02) : 80 - 94
  • [42] The current overview of the devices of temporary anchorage placed on the palatal bone: CBCT study
    Kotan, Seda
    Koc, Alaettin
    Talmac, Ayse Gul Oner
    ODONTOLOGY, 2024, 112 (04) : 1335 - 1342
  • [43] New and Recovered Temporary Anchorage Devices, In Vitro Assessment of Structural and Surface Properties
    Jiman, Paula Argentina
    Prodan, Doina
    Moldovan, Marioara
    Muntean, Alexandrina
    Sarosi, Codruta
    Tarmure, Viorica
    Baciut, Grigore
    Popa, Catalin
    Pop, Andreea Simona
    MATERIALS, 2021, 14 (21)
  • [44] Skeletal and dental effects of Herbst appliance anchored with temporary anchorage devices: A systematic review with meta-analysis
    Al-Dboush, Ra'ed
    Soltan, Rowida
    Rao, Jayadeep
    El-Bialy, Tarek
    ORTHODONTICS & CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH, 2022, 25 (01) : 31 - 48
  • [45] Use of cone-beam computed tomography for investigation of factors affecting the failure of temporary anchorage devices
    Yamaguchi, Amane
    Koizumi, So
    Ikenaka, Ryosuke
    Yamaguchi, Tetsutaro
    JOURNAL OF ORAL SCIENCE, 2024, 66 (04) : 247 - 253
  • [46] Combined Orthodontic Temporary Anchorage Devices and Surgical Management of the Alveolar Ridge Augmentation Using Distraction Osteogenesis
    Aizenbud, Dror
    Hazan-Molina, Hagai
    Cohen, Marie
    Rachmiel, Adi
    JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2012, 70 (08) : 1815 - 1826
  • [47] Comparative evaluation of treatment outcomes between temporary anchorage devices and Class III elastics in Class III malocclusions
    Nakamura, Masahiro
    Kawanabe, Noriaki
    Kataoka, Tomoki
    Murakami, Takashi
    Yamashiro, Takashi
    Kamioka, Hiroshi
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2017, 151 (06) : 1116 - 1124
  • [48] Effect of Temporary Anchorage Devices on class II anterior open bite malocclusion patient
    Nguyen, Justin
    Cramer, Chris
    Park, Steven
    Jones, Hayden
    Alpizar, Ivan
    Hung, Man
    CLINICAL CASE REPORTS, 2025, 13 (03):
  • [49] Knowledge and Perception Toward Orthodontic Skeletal Temporary Anchorage Devices Among Undergraduate Dental Students in Saudi Arabia
    Alotaibi, Saud
    Albatil, Arub
    Almalki, Abdullah
    Shyagali, Tarulatha Revanappa
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ORAL HEALTH, 2023, 15 (03): : 310 - 316
  • [50] Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during en-masse retraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Antoszewska-Smith, Joanna
    Sarul, Michal
    Lyczek, Jan
    Konopka, Tomasz
    Kawala, Beata
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2017, 151 (03) : 440 - 455