Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review

被引:179
|
作者
Schaetzle, Marc [1 ,2 ]
Maennchen, Roland [1 ]
Zwahlen, Marcel [3 ,4 ]
Lang, Niklaus P. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Clin Orthodont & Pediat Dent, Ctr Dent & Oral Med & Craniomaxillofacial Surg, CH-8032 Zurich, Switzerland
[2] Univ Hong Kong, Fac Dent, Prince Philip Dent Hosp, Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[3] Univ Bern, Res Support Unit, Inst Social & Prevent Med, Bern, Switzerland
[4] Univ Hosp Bern, CTU Bern, CH-3010 Bern, Switzerland
关键词
failure; human; skeletal anchorage; survival; systematic review; MINI-IMPLANTS; SUCCESS RATE; SKELETAL ANCHORAGE; PREMOLAR EXTRACTION; CLINICAL-EVALUATION; PALATAL IMPLANTS; MINISCREWS; PLACEMENT; STABILITY; EXPERIENCE;
D O I
10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01754.x
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Aim The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on the survival rates of palatal implants, Onplants (R), miniplates and mini screws. Material and methods An electronic MEDLINE search supplemented by manual searching was conducted to identify randomized clinical trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies on palatal implants, Onplants (R), miniplates and miniscrews with a mean follow-up time of at least 12 weeks and of at least 10 units per modality having been examined clinically at a follow-up visit. Assessment of studies and data abstraction was performed independently by two reviewers. Reported failures of used devices were analyzed using random-effects Poisson regression models to obtain summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of failure and survival proportions. Results The search up to January 2009 provided 390 titles and 71 abstracts with full-text analysis of 34 articles, yielding 27 studies that met the inclusion criteria. In meta-analysis, the failure rate for Onplants (R) was 17.2% (95% CI: 5.9-35.8%), 10.5% for palatal implants (95% CI: 6.1-18.1%), 16.4% for miniscrews (95% CI: 13.4-20.1%) and 7.3% for miniplates (95% CI: 5.4-9.9%). Miniplates and palatal implants, representing torque-resisting temporary anchorage devices (TADs), when grouped together, showed a 1.92-fold (95% CI: 1.06-2.78) lower clinical failure rate than miniscrews. Conclusion Based on the available evidence in the literature, palatal implants and miniplates showed comparable survival rates of >= 90% over a period of at least 12 weeks, and yielded superior survival than miniscrews. Palatal implants and miniplates for temporary anchorage provide reliable absolute orthodontic anchorage. If the intended orthodontic treatment would require multiple miniscrew placement to provide adequate anchorage, the reliability of such systems is questionable. For patients who are undergoing extensive orthodontic treatment, force vectors may need to be varied or the roots of the teeth to be moved may need to slide past the anchors. In this context, palatal implants or miniplates should be the TADs of choice. To cite this article:Schatzle M, Mannchen R, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review.Clin. Oral Impl. Res. 20, 2009; 1351-1359.doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01754.x.
引用
收藏
页码:1351 / 1359
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] AN UMBRELLA REVIEW OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEMPORARY ANCHORAGE DEVICES AND THE FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR SUCCESS OR FAILURE
    Milena Ramirez-Ossa, Diana
    Escobar-Correa, Natalia
    Antonia Ramirez-Bustamante, Maria
    Agudelo-Suarez, Andres A.
    JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED DENTAL PRACTICE, 2020, 20 (02)
  • [22] The effectiveness of Oraqix versus TAC(a) for placement of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices
    Kwong, Thomas S.
    Kusnoto, Budi
    Viana, Grace
    Evans, Carla A.
    Watanabe, Keiko
    ANGLE ORTHODONTIST, 2011, 81 (05) : 754 - 759
  • [23] Anatomic site evaluation of the palatal bone for temporary orthodontic anchorage devices
    Wehrbein, Heinrich
    CLINICAL ORAL IMPLANTS RESEARCH, 2008, 19 (07) : 653 - 656
  • [24] Esthetic orthodontic treatment with a double J retractor and temporary anchorage devices
    Park, Jae Hyun
    Tai, Kiyoshi
    Takagi, Masato
    Miyajima, Kuniaki
    Kojima, Yukio
    Joo, Bo-Hoon
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS AND DENTOFACIAL ORTHOPEDICS, 2012, 141 (06) : 796 - 805
  • [25] Temporary anchorage devices and the forces and effects on the dentition and surrounding structures during orthodontic treatment: a scoping review
    Ritchie, Colin
    McGregor, Scott
    Bearn, David R.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, 2023, 45 (03) : 324 - 337
  • [26] Temporary Anchorage Devices
    Baxi, Shalabh
    Bhatia, Virag
    Tripathi, Anand
    Dubey, Mangleshwar Prasad
    Kumar, Pratiksha
    Mapare, Sagar
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2023, 15 (09)
  • [27] MODERN ANCHORAGE DEVICES IN ORTHODONTIC THERAPY: A LITERATURE REVIEW
    Romanec, C.
    Feier, Ramona
    Panaite, Tinela
    Reda, Baidouri
    Savin, Carmen
    MEDICAL-SURGICAL JOURNAL-REVISTA MEDICO-CHIRURGICALA, 2019, 123 (03): : 522 - 530
  • [28] Dynamics of alveolar bone healing after the removal of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices
    Kim, Sung-Jin
    Ha, Young Don
    Kim, Eunji
    Jang, Woowon
    Hwang, Soonshin
    Tung Nguyen
    Ko, Ching-Chang
    Choi, Yoon Jeong
    Kim, Kyung-Ho
    Chung, Chooryung J.
    JOURNAL OF PERIODONTAL RESEARCH, 2019, 54 (04) : 388 - 395
  • [29] Impacted Canine Management Using Aligners Supported by Orthodontic Temporary Anchorage Devices
    Greco, Mario
    Machoy, Monika
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2023, 20 (01)
  • [30] Cytotoxicity of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts in vitro
    Chen, Zhibin
    Patwari, Manika
    Liu, Dawei
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL DENTAL RESEARCH, 2019, 5 (06): : 648 - 654