Immediate vs. conventional loading of palatal implants in humans

Bone remodelling patterns around orthodontic mini-implants migrating in bone: an experimental study in rat vertebrae

Background

Orthodontic implant migration has been clinically observed in presence of continuous loading forces. Recent studies indicate that osteocytes play a crucial role in this phenomenon.

Objectives

Aim of this study was to investigate local osteocytic gene expression, protein expression, and bone micro-structure in peri-implant regions of pressure and tension.

Material and methods

The present work reports a complementary analysis to a previous micro-computed tomography study. Two customized mini-implants were placed in one caudal rat vertebra and connected by a nickel–titanium contraction spring generating different forces (i.e. 0, 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 N). Either at 2 or 8 weeks, the vertebrae were harvested and utilized for 1. osteocytic gene expression using laser capture micro-dissection on frozen sections coupled with qPCR, 2. haematoxylin–eosin staining for qualitative and quantitative analyses, 3. immunofluorescence staining and analysis, and 4. bone-to-implant contact on undecalcified samples.

Results

At the two time points for all the performed analyses no significant differences were observed with respect to the applied force magnitudes and cell harvesting localization. However, descriptive histological analysis revealed remarkable bone remodelling at 2 weeks of loading. At 8 weeks the implants were osseointegrated and, especially in 1.0 and 1.5 N groups, newly formed bone presented a characteristic load bearing architecture with trabecula oriented in the direction of the loading.

Conclusions

The present study confirmed that stress-induced bone remodelling is the biological mechanism of orthodontic implant migration. Bone apposition was found at ‘tension’ and ‘pressure’ sites thus limiting implant migration over time.

Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background/aim

Retraction of the upper incisors/canines requires maximum anchorage. The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy of mini implants in comparison to conventional devices in patients with need for en masse retraction of the front teeth in the upper jaw.

Material and methods

An electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE and hand searching were performed. Relevant articles were assessed, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. A random effects model, weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for horizontal and vertical anchorage loss at the first molars in the analyzed patient treatments.

Results

A total of seven RCTs employing direct anchorage through implants in the alveolar ridge were finally considered for qualitative and quantitative analysis, and further five publications were considered for the qualitative analysis only (three studies: indirect anchorage through implant in the mid-palate, two studies: direct/indirect anchorage in the alveolar ridge). In the control groups, anchorage was achieved through transpalatal arches, headgear, Nance buttons, intrusion arches, and differential moments.

WMD [95% CI, p] in anchorage loss between test and control groups amounted to − 2.79 mm [− 3.56 to − 2.03 mm, p < 0.001] in the horizontal and − 1.76 mm [− 2.56 to − 0.97, p < 0.001] favoring skeletal anchorage over control measures. The qualitative analysis revealed that minor anchorage loss can be associated with indirect anchorage, whereas anchorage gain was commonly associated with direct anchorage. Implant failures were comparable for both anchorage modalities (direct 9.9%, indirect 8.6%).

Conclusion

Within its limitations, the meta-analysis revealed that maximum anchorage en masse retraction can be achieved by orthodontic mini implants and direct anchorage; however, the ideal implant location (palate versus alveolar ridge) and the beneficial effect of direct over indirect anchorage needs to be further evaluated.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Implants for orthodontic anchorage: success rates and reasons of failures

INTRODUCTION

The aims of this study were to analyze the success rate of mini-implants and miniscrews and to report the reasons behind them.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An electronic literature search from PubMed databases and a hand search in implant- and orthodontic-related journals were performed until December 31, 2011. Human clinical studies in English that reported temporary anchorage devices used for orthodontic purpose with at least 6 months follow-up were included. In addition, the minimal number of implants had to be at least 10. Implants placed in maxilla, mandible, and hard palate were included.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 847 articles, of which 46 were further evaluated. Finally, 29 studies were qualified and classified into 2 groups: implants placed in maxilla and mandible (group 1) and implants placed in hard palate (group 2). A meta-analysis performed for groups 1 and 2 showed 87.8% and 93.8% survival rate, respectively. In addition, the most common cause for implants failure was surgery-related factors.

CONCLUSION

Mini-implant survival rate is location dependent, with those placed in the palate showing higher success rates. In addition, failures most commonly occur because of surgery-related factors.

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.