Effects of low-level laser therapy on orthodontic miniscrew stability: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Miniscrews as auxiliary anchorage devices in orthodontic treatment have definite advantages and efficacy. The aim of the present study was to investigate the scientific evidence including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) to support the application of low-level laser therapy to improve miniscrews stability in orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

An extensive literature research was conducted with the Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and ScienceDirect without language limitations. All searches were inclusive until June 2020. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the risk of bias (RoB) in the included RCTs.

RESULTS

Through the electronic searches, 428 titles and abstracts were identified. From these, 4 articles were retrieved for review, and 3 of these met the inclusion criteria. Two RCTs reported increased miniscrews stability with low-intensity laser therapy, but the other one reported no difference. Except one study assessed as "high risk of bias" the other two were rated as "low risk of bias".

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of LLLT for improvement of miniscrew stability. Further studies with a better study design, reliable evaluation method, comprehensive evaluation intervals and appropriate loading protocol are required to provide more reliable evidence for the clinical application of LLLT.

A Scoping Review about the Characteristics and Success-Failure Rates of Temporary Anchorage Devices in Orthodontics

This study synthesized the scientific evidence concerning the main characteristics of the Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs) used in orthodontics and reported the success-failure rates during treatment. For that means, this scoping review collected articles from previous research. A complementary search was carried out in the databases PubMed-MEDLINE, Scopus, LILACS, and EMBASE, focusing on original studies published from 2010 to 2020. We analyzed the main characteristics of the publications. As a result, 103 articles were included. Most of the research was conducted among different groups, who needed TADs principally in the maxilla and an interradicular location between the second premolar and first molar. AbsoAnchor, Dentos Inc., Daegu, Korea, was the most used brand of TADs. The most common characteristics of the devices and biomechanics were a diameter and length of 1.6 mm and 8 mm, a self-drilled system, a closed technique for placement, immediate loading, and forces that ranged between 40 and 800 g. Of the studies, 47.6% showed success rates ≥90%. In conclusion, high success rates were found for TADs, and differences were found according to sociodemographic and clinical variables. The studies showed variability in methodological design, and scientific publications were concentrated in certain countries. We recommend further scientific research on TADs using more standardized designs.

NP, Ahmed S, B. VN. Fracture Resistance of Commonly Used Self-drilling Mini-implants of Various Diameters

Context: Self-drilling mini-implants are commonly used in orthodontic treatment procedures, but there is limited information regarding their fracture resistance in areas of high-density bone without predrilling.

Aims: The objective of this study is to compare and evaluate the maximum insertion torque and fracture resistance of 3 commonly used self-drilling mini-implants in India, and to assess the influence of variation in diameter in torque generation.

Materials and methods: 90 mini-implants from 3 different manufacturers with 2 different diameters were drilled into acrylic blocks using a dial indicating torque screwdriver. All mini-implants were drilled at the rate of 20-30 rotations/min, implants were drilled until they fractured. Torque generated at the point of fracture is shown on the dial of the screwdriver. Measurements of the peak insertion torque value for each manufacturer were recorded separately.

Statistical analysis: Analysis of variance, post hoc Bonferroni test.

Results: Analysis of variance test showed a significant difference among all the manufacturers in both the diameters with P < .05. Implants of 1.6 mm diameter of Ancer group have the highest fracture resistance value when compared with the same diameter of JJ Orthodontics and SK Surgicals. Implants with higher diameter have more resistance than those with lower diameter.

Conclusions: The observed highest fracture resistance is 47 Ncm by Ancer and least fracture resistance is 16 Ncm by JJ Orthodontics. The values are higher than the torque required to place mini-implants intraorally. Ancer mini-implants have the highest peak fracture torque, thus more than SK Surgicals and JJ Orthodontics.

Miniscrews failure rate in orthodontics: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Miniscrews in orthodontics have been mainly used for anchorage without patient compliance in orthodontic treatment. The literature has reported changing failure rates.

Objective

The aim of this review was to provide a precise estimation of miniscrew failure rate and the possible risk factors of the mechanically-retained miniscrews.

Search method

Electronic search in database was undertaken up to July 2017 through the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Ovid. Additional searching for on-going and unpublished data, hand search of relevant journals and grey lietraure were also undertaken, authors were contacted, and reference lists screened.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective cohort studies (PCSs), published in English were obtained, which reported the failure rate of miniscrews, as orthodontic anchorage, with less than 2 mm diameter.

Data collection and analysis

Blind and induplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were undertaken in this research. Failure rates and relevant risk factors of miniscrews with the corresponding 95 per cent confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated by using the random-effects model. The heterogeneity across the studies was assessed using the I2 and Chi2 test. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias and Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed in order to test the robustness of the results in meta-analysis.

Results

The 16 RCTs and 30 PCSs were included in this research. Five studies were not included in the meta-analysis due to a lack of the statistical information needed to compute the effect sizes. About 3250 miniscrews from 41 studies were pooled in a random-effect model. The overall failure rate of miniscrews was 13.5 per cent (95% CI 11.5-15.9). Subgroup analysis showed that miniscrews 'diameter, length and design, patient age, and jaw of insertion had minimal effect on rate of miniscrews failure while the type of the gingivae and smoking had statistically significant effect.

Conclusion

Miniscrews have an acceptably low failure rate. The findings should be interpreted with caution due to high-level of heterogeneity and unbalanced groups in the included studies. High quality randomized clinical trial with large sample sizes are required to support the findings of this review.

Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the failure rates of miniscrews related to their specific insertion site and explore the insertion site dependent risk factors contributing to their failure.

Search methods

An electronic search was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Knowledge, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed up to October 2017. A comprehensive manual search was also performed.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised clinical trials and prospective non-randomised studies, reporting a minimum of 20 inserted miniscrews in a specific insertion site and reporting the miniscrews’ failure rate in that insertion site, were included.

Data collection and analysis

Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Studies were sub-grouped according to the insertion site, and the failure rates for every individual insertion site were analysed using a random-effects model with corresponding 95% confidence interval. Sensitivity analyses were performed in order to test the robustness of the reported results.

Results

Overall, 61 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Palatal sites had failure rates of 1.3% (95% CI 0.3–6), 4.8% (95% CI 1.6–13.4) and 5.5% (95% CI 2.8–10.7) for the midpalatal, paramedian and parapalatal insertion sites, respectively. The failure rates for the maxillary buccal sites were 9.2% (95% CI 7.4–11.4), 9.7% (95% CI 5.1–17.6) and 16.4% (95% CI 4.9–42.5) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between maxillary first molars and second premolars and between maxillary canines and lateral incisors, and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress respectively. The failure rates for the mandibular buccal insertion sites were 13.5% (95% CI 7.3–23.6) and 9.9% (95% CI 4.9–19.1) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between mandibular first molars and second premolars and between mandibular canines and first premolars, respectively. The risk of failure increased when the miniscrews contacted the roots, with a risk ratio of 8.7 (95% CI 5.1–14.7).

Conclusions

Orthodontic miniscrew implants provide acceptable success rates that vary among the explored insertion sites. Very low to low quality of evidence suggests that miniscrews inserted in midpalatal locations have a failure rate of 1.3% and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress have a failure rate of 16.4%. Moderate quality of evidence indicates that root contact significantly contributes to the failure of interradicular miniscrews placed between the first molars and second premolars. Results should be interpreted with caution due to methodological drawbacks in some of the included studies.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40510-018-0225-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prognosis of primary and secondary insertions of orthodontic miniscrews: What we have learned from 500 implants

INTRODUCTION

Although the success of using orthodontic miniscrews for primary insertion has been reported in the literature, few studies have followed up on secondary insertions after failure of the first insertion. In this study, we investigated not only the primary but also secondary success rates of miniscrews and considered the risk factors influencing their stability.

METHODS

Five hundred miniscrews were inserted for orthodontic anchorage in 240 patients. Ninety-eight miniscrews lacked stability; thus, 77 of these were removed and reinserted. We calculated and compared the primary and secondary success rates of insertion. Moreover, we investigated which clinical parameters affected the stability of miniscrews.

RESULTS

The success rate of secondary insertion (44.2%) was significantly lower than that of primary insertion (80.4%). The screw length and jaw receiving the insertion were significantly associated with the stability of miniscrews. The 8.0-mm miniscrews were significantly more stable than the 6.0-mm miniscrews, and the success rate for insertions into the maxilla was significantly higher than that for the mandible.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary insertions lack stability; therefore, clinicians should be aware of the reduced success rate of reinsertion and know the risk factors to avoid failure of secondary insertions.

Comparison of the success rate between self-drilling and self-tapping miniscrews: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Both the self-drilling and self-tapping miniscrews have been commonly used as anchorage reinforcement devices in orthodontic treatment.

Objective

The aim of this study was to compare the success rates of self-drilling and self-tapping miniscrews in orthodontic practice.

Search methods

Literature searches were performed by electronic search in database including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and SIGLE, and manual search of relevant journals and reference lists of included studies.

Eligibility criteria

Randomized controlled trials, clinical controlled trials and cohort studies comparing the success rates of self-drilling and self-tapping miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage.

Data collection and analysis

The data of success rates and root contact rates were extracted by two investigators independently. After evaluating the risk of bias, the odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Subgroup analysis was performed on the basis of study design, follow-ups, participant ages and immediate/delayed loading. Sensitivity analysis was performed to test the stability of the results in meta-analysis.

Results

Six studies assessed as high quality were included in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis results showed no difference between the two types of screws in the success rates. The root contact rates of the two screws were similar, while self-drilling miniscrews displayed higher risk of failure when contacting with a tooth root.

Conclusions

Currently available clinical evidence suggests that the success rates of self-tapping and self-drilling miniscrews are similar. Determination of the position and direction of placement should be more precise when self-drilling miniscrews are used in sites with narrow root proximity.

Registration

None.

Conflict of interest

None.

Fracture resistance of commonly used self-drilling orthodontic mini-implants

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the fracture resistance of six commonly used self-drilling orthodontic mini-implants by comparing their respective fracture torques during insertion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety self-drilling mini-implants from six manufacturers (Aarhus, Dual-Top, OrthoEasy, Tomas-pin, Unitek, and VectorTAS), with diameters ranging from 1.4 to 1.8 mm, were inserted into acrylic blocks using a custom-made insertion device. Insertion torques were measured using a 6-degree-of-freedom load cell fixed to the base of the acrylic blocks, and peak torques experienced at the time of fracture for each of the mini-implants were recorded. One-way analysis of variance (α  =  .05) was used to compare the fracture torques among the six different groups.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis revealed significant differences (P < .05) in the peak fracture torques among mini-implant groups. Mean fracture torques ranked as follows: Unitek (72 Ncm) > Tomas-pin (36 Ncm) > Dual-Top (32 Ncm) ≈ VectorTAS (31 Ncm) > OrthoEasy (28 Ncm) > Aarhus (25 Ncm), with significant differences found between all manufacturers, except for Dual-Top and VectorTAS.

CONCLUSIONS

Mini-implants tested showed a wide range of torque at fracture depending on the manufacturer, with only a weak correlation between mini-implant diameter and fracture resistance. This torque should be considered at the time of mini-implant insertion to minimize the risk of implant fracture, especially in areas of high-density bone without predrilling.

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods

BACKGROUND

The term anchorage in orthodontic treatment refers to methods of controlling unwanted tooth movement. This is provided either by anchor sites within the mouth, such as the teeth and the palate, or from outside the mouth (headgear). Recently, new methods of providing anchorage have been developed using orthodontic implants which are surgically inserted into the bone in the mouth. This is termed surgical anchorage. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of surgical anchorage techniques compared to conventional anchorage in the prevention of unwanted tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment by evaluating the mesiodistal movement of upper first molar teeth. A secondary objective was to compare the effects of one type of surgical anchorage with another.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 28 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 28 October 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 28 October 2013). We handsearched key international orthodontic and dental journals, and searched the trial database ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing and unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing surgical anchorage with conventional anchorage in orthodontic patients. Trials comparing two types of surgical anchorage were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently and in duplicate extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessments. We contacted study authors to clarify aspects of study design and conduct, and to obtain unreported data.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen new studies were added in this update resulting in a total of 15 studies reporting data from 561 randomised patients. The studies were conducted in Europe, India, China, South Korea and the USA. The age range of patients was commonly restricted to adolescents or young adults, however the participants of two studies were from a much wider age range (12 to 54 years). The distribution of males and females was similar in eight of the studies, with a predominance of female patients in seven studies.Eight studies were assessed to be at high overall risk of bias; six studies at unclear risk of bias; one study at low risk of bias.Ten studies with 407 randomised and 390 analysed patients compared surgical anchorage with conventional anchorage for the primary outcome of mesiodistal movement of upper first molars. We carried out a random-effects model meta-analysis for the seven studies that fully reported this outcome. There was strong evidence of an effect of surgical anchorage on this outcome. Compared with conventional anchorage, surgical anchorage was more effective in the reinforcement of anchorage by 1.68 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.27 mm to -1.09 mm; seven studies, 308 participants analysed) with moderate quality of evidence (one study at high overall risk of bias, five studies at unclear risk of bias, one study at low risk of bias). This result should be interpreted with some caution, however, as there was a substantial degree of heterogeneity for this comparison. There was no evidence of a difference in overall duration of treatment between surgical and conventional anchorage (-0.15 years; 95% CI -0.37 years to 0.07 years; three studies, 111 analysed patients) with low quality of evidence (one study at high overall risk of bias and two studies at unclear risk of bias). Information on patient-reported outcomes such as pain and acceptability was limited and inconclusive.When direct comparisons were made between two types of surgical anchorage, there was a lack of evidence to suggest that any one technique was better than another.No included studies reported adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that reinforcement of anchorage is more effective with surgical anchorage than conventional anchorage, and that results from mini-screw implants are particularly promising. While surgical anchorage is not associated with the inherent risks and compliance issues related to extraoral headgear, none of the included studies reported on harms of surgical or conventional anchorage.

Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Risk factors concerning orthodontic miniscrew implants have not been adequately assessed. In this systematic review, we summarize the knowledge from published clinical trials regarding the failure rates of miniscrew implants used for orthodontic anchorage purposes and identify the factors that possibly affect them.

METHODS

Nineteen electronic databases and reference lists of included studies were searched up to February 2011, with no restrictions. Only randomized controlled trials, prospective controlled trials, and prospective cohort studies were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed twice. Failure event rates, relative risks, and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. The random-effects model was used to assess each factor's impact. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were also implemented.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included for the overall miniscrew implant failure rate and 30 studies for the investigation of risk factors. From the 4987 miniscrew implants used in 2281 patients, the overall failure rate was 13.5% (95% confidence interval, 11.5-15.8). Failures of miniscrew implants were not associated with patient sex or age and miniscrew implant insertion side, whereas they were significantly associated with jaw of insertion. Certain trends were identified through exploratory analysis; however, because of the small number of original studies, no definite conclusions could be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthodontic miniscrew implants have a modest small mean failure rate, indicating their usefulness in clinical practice. Although many factors seem to affect their failure rates, the majority of them still need additional evidence to support any possible associations.