Meta-analysis dataset comparing orthodontic mini-implants and conventional anchorage reinforcement for maximum orthodontic anchorage

The Efficacy of Orthodontics plus Implant Anchorage in Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Study

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of orthodontics plus implant anchorage in orthodontic treatment.

Methods

This randomized controlled study was conducted on 90 patients who had orthodontic treatment in our hospital between October 2019 and October 2020, and they were assigned to either a control group (n = 45) or an observation group (n = 45) via the random number table method. Patients in the control group received orthodontics while those in the observation group underwent orthodontics plus implant anchorage. The two groups were compared in terms of clinical indexes, efficacy, orthodontic state, adverse reaction rate, quality of life, and satisfaction.

Results

After treatment, orthodontics plus implant anchorage led to lower gingival attachment level, gingival bleeding index, plaque index, and periodontal probing depth versus orthodontics alone (P < 0.05); orthodontics plus implant anchorage contributed to a higher efficacy versus orthodontics alone (91.11% vs. 73.33%, P < 0.05); orthodontics plus implant anchorage resulted in smaller molar displacement, larger protrusion distance of the upper central incisor, and larger inclination angle of the upper central incisor (P < 0.05); orthodontics plus implant anchorage was associated with fewer adverse reactions (4.44% vs. 26.67%, P < 0.05) and a higher quality of life scores versus orthodontics alone (P < 0.05); orthodontics plus implant anchorage yielded a higher satisfaction level versus orthodontics alone (95.56% vs. 66.67%, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The orthodontics plus implant anchorage offers a promising solution in orthodontic treatment. It is conducive to restoring dental indicators and improving quality of life and satisfaction. It is therefore worthy of application.

[Efficacy of vertical control by using mini-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area for Angle class Ⅱ extraction patients]

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy of vertical control by using conventional mini-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area for Angle class Ⅱ extraction patients.

METHODS

Twenty-eight Angle class Ⅱ patients [9 males, 19 females, and age (22.6±2.8) years] were selected in this study. All of these patients were treated by using straight wire appliance with 4 premolars extraction and 2 mini-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area. In this study, the self-control method was used to measure and analyze the lateral radiographs taken before and after orthodontic treatment in each case, the main cephalometric analysis items were related to vertical changes. The digitized lateral radiographs were imported into Dolphin Imaging Software (version 11.5: Dolphin Imaging and Management Solutions, Chatsworth, California, USA), and marked points were traced. Each marked point was confirmed by two orthodontists. The same orthodontist performed measurement on the lateral radiographs over a period of time. All measurement items were required to be measured 3 times, and the average value was taken as the final measurement result.

RESULTS

Analysis of the cephalometric radiographs showed that, for vertical measurements after treatment, the differences of the following measurements were highly statistically significant (P < 0.001): SN-MP decreased by (1.40±1.45) degrees on average, FMA decreased by (1.58±1.32) degrees on average, the back-to-front height ratio (S-Go/N-Me) decreased by 1.42%±1.43% on average, Y-axis angle decreased by (1.03±0.99) degrees on average, face angle increases by (1.37±1.05) degree on average; The following measurements were statistically significant (P < 0.05): the average depression of the upper molars was (0.68±1.40) mm, and the average depression of the upper anterior teeth was (1.07±1.55) mm. The outcomes indicated that there was a certain degree of upper molar depression after the treatment, which produced a certain degree of counterclockwise rotation of the mandibular plane, resulting in a positive effect on the improvement of the profile.

CONCLUSION

The conventional micro-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area has a certain vertical control ability, and can give rise to a certain counterclockwise rotation of the mandible, which would improve the profile of Angle Class Ⅱ patients.