Comparison of Anchorage Efficiency of Orthodontic Mini-implant and Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Patients Requiring Maximum Orthodontic Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming City, China;2. Department of Stomatology, Kunming Yanan Hospital, Kunming City, China;1. Assistant professor, Orthodontic Department, School of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran;2. Assistant professor, Orthodontic Department, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran;3. Assistant professor, Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran;4. Assistant professor, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Department, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran;1. Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran;2. Dental Implants Research Center, Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran;3. Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran;4. Dental Research Center, Department of Orthodontics, Dental School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran;1. Department of Orthodontics, University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany;2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany;3. Department of Medical Statistics, University Hospital of the RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany;4. Center of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Medical School, Sigmund Freud University, Vienna, Austria;5. Department of Orthodontics, University Hospital of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany;6. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, University of Pecs, Pecs, Hungary |
| |
| Abstract: | ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effectiveness of mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage appliances used for orthodontic anchorage reinforcement in patients with class I or II malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion.Materials and MethodsLiterature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for the search string: “skeletal anchorage”, “temporary anchorage devices”, “miniscrew implant”, “mini-implant”, “micro-implant”. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of horizontal and vertical movements of teeth from baseline were used for comparison.ResultsA total of 12 studies were included in the final analysis. MI group significantly lowered mesial movement of molars compared to conventional anchorage group (SMD = −1.48, 95% CI = −2.25 to −0.72; P = .0002). There was significantly higher retraction of incisors in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = −0.47 mm, 95% CI = −0.87 to −0.07; P = .02). No significant difference was seen in vertical movement of molars (SMD = −0.21 mm, 95% CI = −0.87 to 0.45; P = .52) and incisors (SMD = −0.30, 95% CI = −1.18 to 0.58; P = .5).ConclusionMIs seem to be more effective than the conventional anchorage devices in terms of minimizing unintended mesial movement of molars with maximum retraction of anterior teeth. |
| |
| Keywords: | Orthodontic implant Traditional anchorage Tooth movement Anchorage loss Evidence-based orthodontics |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
