Dataset Information

RFA measurements of survival midpalatal orthodontic mini-implants in comparison to initial healing period.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:In dental implantology, the development of stability over time is a well-investigated topic. In case of orthodontic mini-implants, quantitative data for long-term stability is not available yet. This study aims to clinically investigate the long-term stability of mini-implants inserted in the midsagittal suture of the anterior palate. Moreover, the influence of the length of implants was elucidated. The stability of 2?×?9 and 2?×?11?mm mini-implants after orthodontic treatment (9?mm, 2.84 years?±?1.25 years; 11?mm, 3.17 years?±?0.96 years) was assessed by resonance frequency analysis (RFA). The obtained long-term pieces of data were compared with each other (9?mm vs 11?mm), as well as with the data from the matched early stability groups, to assess the initial and early secondary stability after the insertion from previous clinical trials. RESULTS:For both lengths, the long-term stability (2?×?9?mm, 25.12?±?7.11, n?=?21; 2?×?11?mm, 24.39?±?5.82, n?=?18) was significantly lower than primary stability (2?×?9 mm, 36.14?±?6.08, n?=?19; 2?×?11 mm, 33.35?±?3.53, n?=?20). The differences within the groups disappeared over the initial healing period: after 4 weeks for the 2?×?9 mm implants and after 2 weeks for the 2?×?11?mm implants. Also, the 2?×?9?mm and 2?×?11?mm implants showed comparable long-term stability values. CONCLUSION:The stability of midpalatal mini-implants does not change in the long term after the initial healing period. Moreover, 2?×?9?mm mini-implants seem to be appropriate for orthodontic anchorage, as the stability of 2?×?11?mm implants is not higher. Therefore, owing to lower invasiveness, 2?×?9?mm implants should be preferred.

SUBMITTER: Nienkemper M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7024683 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

RFA measurements of survival midpalatal orthodontic mini-implants in comparison to initial healing period.

Nienkemper Manuel M Willmann Jan H JH Becker Kathrin K Drescher Dieter D

Progress in orthodontics 20200217 1

<h4>Background</h4>In dental implantology, the development of stability over time is a well-investigated topic. In case of orthodontic mini-implants, quantitative data for long-term stability is not available yet. This study aims to clinically investigate the long-term stability of mini-implants inserted in the midsagittal suture of the anterior palate. Moreover, the influence of the length of implants was elucidated. The stability of 2 × 9 and 2 × 11 mm mini-implants after orthodontic treatment ...[more]

PMID: 32064547

Similar Datasets

Project description:The study aimed to clinically estimate an influence of a 635 nm diode laser on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants, to assess mini-implants loss, and to evaluate a pain level after the treatment. The randomized clinical split-mouth trial included 20 subjects (13 women and 7 men; age: 32.5 ± 6.1 years), 40 implants (RMO, West Colfax Ave., Denver, CO, USA) with a diameter 1.4 mm and length of 10 mm. Mini-implants were placed in the area of the attached gingiva between the second premolar and first molar teeth, 2 mm below the mucogingival junction of both sides of the maxilla. Each implant on the right side (G1, n = 20) of the maxilla was irradiated with a diode laser, and the implants on the opposite side (left, G2, n = 20) were a control group (without laser irradiation). The 635-nm laser parameters; dose: 10 J per point (20 J/cm2), time: 100 s per point, two points (irradiation on a buccal, and a palatal side of the alveolus/implant), the total energy per session 20 J. Laser application protocol: immediately and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 30 days after surgery. The total energy after all therapeutic sessions was 140 J. The implants' stability was measured employing a Periotest device (Periotest Test Value-PTV) immediately and 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 30, and 60 days after the insertion of the mini-implants. We found significantly higher secondary stability, lower mean PTV (6.18 ± 5.30) and (1.51 ± 2.25), for self-drilling mini-implants (G1, test group) in contrast to the control, G2 group (9.17 ± 8.25) and (5.00 ± 3.24), after 30 (p = 0.0003) and 60 days (p = 0.0000). Moreover, the analysis of the mini-implants stability after 635-nm diode laser application revealed significant higher stability in comparison with none irradiated implants (G2 group) after 3 days. (p = 0.0000) There was no significant difference in pain level measured on the NRS-11 scale on both sides of the maxilla. (p = 0.3665) An important finding was that all inserted mini-implants survived during a two-month observation period. 635-nm diode laser at laser irradiation increases the secondary stability of orthodontic mini-implants.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

RFA measurements of survival midpalatal orthodontic mini-implants in comparison to initial healing period.

Publications

RFA measurements of survival midpalatal orthodontic mini-implants in comparison to initial healing period.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure