Implants for orthodontic anchorage: An overview

Temporary Anchorage Devices

Reaction to the force application is observed in the clinical scenarios as anchorage loss, which is the unwanted movement of the teeth. A plethora of approaches have been developed over time in orthodontics to overcome anchorage loss. These approaches are termed anchorage reinforcement procedures. Anchorage loss refers to the unintended movement or shifting of teeth that are intended to remain stable and serve as anchoring points during orthodontic treatment. This loss of stability can occur in various dimensions, including horizontal, vertical, or transverse, and can result in undesired changes to the overall positioning and alignment of teeth. Anchorage can be termed as conventional intraoral anchorage which usually leads to significant anchorage loss. The conventional extraoral anchorage such as headgear suffers from the issue of compliance.

[The use of an individualized mini plate for the distalization of teeth]

The case of treatment of a 32-year-old patient with complaints about the aesthetics of a smile and the absence of teeth 17 and 46 is presented. During the examination, it was established: the retraction position of the teeth in the frontal part of the upper jaw, the closure of the molars according to the II class of the second subclass of Engl (distal bite), the vestibular position of the teeth 13, 23. To change the spatial position of the lower jaw, the fixation of the bracket system on the upper jaw was performed. and also an individualized mini-plate was installed in the area of the zygomatic alveolar ridge on the right and left, for distalization of the dentition of the upper jaw with the help of orthodontic traction applied from the teeth to the mini-plates. This clinical example demonstrates the possibility of using individualized mini-plates for distalization of the upper dentition, as an alternative and more stable method of treatment in such clinical cases.

Revisiting the Complications of Orthodontic Miniscrew

Miniscrew has been used widely as an effective orthodontic anchorage with reliable stationary quality, ease of insertion and removal techniques, immediate or early loading, flexibility in site insertion, less trauma, minimal patient cooperation, and lower price. Nonetheless, it is not free of complications, and they could impact not only the miniscrew success rate but also patients’ oral health. In this article, literature was searched and reviewed electronically as well as manually to evaluate the complications of orthodontic miniscrew. The selected articles are analyzed and subcategorized into complications during and after insertion, under loading, and during and after removal along with treatment if needed according to the time. In addition, the noteworthy associated factors such as the insertion and removal procedures, characteristics of both regional and local anatomic structures, and features of the miniscrew itself that play a significant role in the performance of miniscrews are also discussed based on literature evidence. Clinicians should notice these complications and their related factors to make a proper treatment plan with better outcomes.

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.

Quantitative Assessment of Posterior Maxillary Arch for Orthodontic Miniscrew Insertion Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: A Cross-Sectional Analysis

Methods and Materials

Cone beam computed tomography records of 35 patients (70 quadrants) from maxilla were evaluated. The images were analyzed using the NNT viewer software (version 23). The measurements were made on axial sections at 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm from CEJ. The optimal sites were defined in terms of mesiodistal palatal or buccal interradicular distance, alveolar cortical bone thickness, and palatal or buccal safe depth of the bone for miniscrew insertion. Descriptive statistics, paired t-test, and repeated measure ANOVA were used to analyze the data.

Results

The mean buccal interradicular distance was the lowest between first and second molar (2.44 mm) and the highest between first and second premolar (3.28 mm). The mean palatal interradicular distance was the lowest between first and second premolar (3.64 mm) and the highest between second premolar and first molar (5.30 mm). The mean buccal safe depth was the lowest between canine and first premolar (1.96 mm) and the highest between first and second molar (2.61 mm). The mean palatal safe depth was the lowest between second premolar and first molar (3.35 mm) and the highest between first and second molar (3.56 mm). The thinnest and thickest buccal cortical thicknesses were detected on canine and first molar (1.04 mm) and on the second premolar and second molar (1.56 mm).

Conclusion

The quantity and quality of the maxillary alveolar process is an important factor to decide where to insert the orthodontic miniscrews, necessitating careful preoperative evaluation.

DENTAL PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES -- THE PROMISE OF DENTAL IMPLANTS

In general dental practice, the use of implants is focused mostly on prosthodontic issues. That is, the replacement of missing teeth or the support of dental prostheses. However, there are other dental fields using implants such as orthodontics or maxillofacial prosthodontics. A classic way to measure success in implant dentistry is to look how long implants and the corresponding superstructure survive and are in function. Nevertheless, this alone is a very crude parameter. Therefore, biological and technical complications are taken in account additionally. Nonetheless, these objective measures do not well replicate the perception of the patient. That why, subjective measures, reflecting the perception of the patient are recommended to complement objective parameters. If these dental patient-reported outcome measures (dPROMs) are wisely chosen, they offer a wide variety of options. Besides comparing therapeutic effects by using the instruments' summary score only, dPROMs such as the Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP) provide the opportunity to additionally assess patients` perceptions in the 4 dimensions of oral health-related quality of life. These are functional limitations, pain, esthetic issues as well as psychosocial impairment. Even the 5-item short form of the OHIP captures these dimensions and provides an efficient way to assess patients' perception with low administrative burden. This in turn offers new insights into the patient perspective and therefore helps improving shared decision making.

Effects of low-level laser therapy on the orthodontic mini-implants stability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) stability.

Materials and methods

An unrestricted electronic database search in PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov and a hand search were performed up to December 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or non-randomized clinical trials (Non-RCTs) that assessed the effects of LLLT on the OMI stability were included. Data regarding the general information, LLLT characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. The authors performed risk of bias assessment with Cochrane Collaboration’s or ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis was also conducted.

Results

Five RCTs and one Non-RCT were included and 108 patients were evaluated. The LLLT characteristics presented different wavelength, power, energy density, irradiation time, and protocol duration. Five RCTs had a low risk of selection bias. Two RCTs had a low risk of performance and detection bias. All RCTs had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias. The Non-RCT presented a low risk of bias for all criteria, except for the bias in selection of participants. The meta-analysis revealed that LLLT significantly increased the OMI stability (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.67) and the highest clinical benefit was showed after 1 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.75), 2 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.21), and 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.51) months of OMI placement.

Conclusions

LLLT shows positive effects on the OMI stability.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40510-021-00350-y.

An Umbrella Review of the Effectiveness of Temporary Anchorage Devices and the Factors That Contribute to Their Success or Failure

OBJECTIVES

New methodological approaches, such as the umbrella review, constitute an important pathway for synthesizing the scientific evidence provided from studies with a high level of evidence. This study aims to summarize the results on the effectiveness of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) and the factors that contribute to their success or failure during orthodontic treatment in patients of different age groups and to identify the gaps in knowledge based on analysis of the scientific literature.

METHODS

An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was performed. A quality evaluation and a descriptive analysis of the included studies were conducted. The study protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42018094463).

RESULTS

Seventeen systematic reviews and meta-analyses were considered (10 descriptive and 7 with meta-analysis; 12 of high quality and 5 of moderate quality). Variability was observed in the type of intervention and the type of system (TADs). Most of the studies reported high success rates (≥90%), and just one systematic review indicated a low rate of success (≤56%) for the mini-screws. All the studies discussed several factors related to the success of the TADs. These factors were classified as device-related factors, patient-related factors, procedure-related factors, and orthodontic treatment-related factors. Conceptual and methodological gaps were observed when considering the data analysis, the terminology used, and the orthodontic protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

The results should be analysed cautiously because of several research gaps related to the methodological quality and the high heterogeneity of the original studies and because of the necessity to add several clinical and sociodemographic variables to enrich the data analysis.

Soft Tissue Changes in Patients With Dentoalveolar Protrusion Treated With Maximum Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis aimed at comparing the angular and linear changes of soft tissue profile using conventional anchorage techniques and mini-implant (MI)-based space closure in patients with dentoalveolar protrusion.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Electronic databases, viz. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, were searched for relevant literature from their inception to December 2017 according to the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for searching: "skeletal anchorage", "temporary anchorage devices", "miniscrew implant", "mini-implant", "micro-implant". Selected randomized control trials (RCTs) were assessed for their quality using Cochrane's Risk of Bias Tool, whereas the Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for non-RCTs. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were obtained with either fixed- or random-effects models based on the heterogeneity of the included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 5 articles (2 RCTs with moderate risk of bias and 3 high-quality non-RCT studies) were included in the final analysis. The nasolabial angle had significantly greater changes in the MI group than in the conventional anchorage group (SMD = 0.68, 95% CI = 0.39 to 0.97, P < .0001). Significantly higher retraction of the upper lip was seen in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = -0.51, 95% CI = -0.84 to -0.18; P = .002). No significant difference was seen in the facial convexity (SMD = -0.34, 95% CI = -0.76 to 0.07, P = .106) and lower lip retraction (SMD = 0.28, 95% CI = -1.72 to 2.28, P = .784) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

It was seen that MIs facilitated favorable soft tissue profile than the conventional anchorage devices. However, more high-quality studies are warranted to confirm the clinical effectiveness of MIs.