Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
The study samples considered for the qualitative synthesis consisted of females exhibiting Angle Class II,1 malocclusion with upper dental protrusion and an overjet of at least 7 mm [48], patients with a dental Class II, a need for extraction of the first upper premolars and front retraction [54], or Class III patients with a need for pre-surgical decompensation through premolar extraction and front retraction [57].
The majority of studies employed mini implants in direct anchorage mode placed bilaterally in the alveolar ridge. After leveling, alignment, and placement of a passive stainless-steel arch (varying from 0.019″ × 0.025″ to 0.016″ × 0.0022″), the implants were placed between the tooth roots. Retraction was achieved through sliding mechanics using either power chains or nickel titanium coil springs of usually 100–200 g. Implant lengths varied from 7 to 9 mm, and the diameter varied from 1.2 to 2.0 mm (Table 2). All implants were loaded within 3 days [1, 11, 28, 48,49,50, 52].
In the majority of the indirect anchorage groups, a single mini implant was placed in the anterior palate and connected to the first molars through an individually fabricated transpalatal arch [5, 54, 57]. Whereas three studies used the Straumann® Ortho (Basel, Switzerland) system and employed loading after 3 months of healing [5, 54], one study used either a 2 × 10 mm Dual Top™ (Jeil Medical Corporation, Seoul, South Korea) or a 2.0 × 11 mm BENEFIT® (Mondeal Medical Systems, Mühlheim, Germany) implant and employed immediate loading. One study employed indirect anchorage through a mini implant located in the alveolar ridge [9] (Table 2).
In the control groups, the majority of studies employed transpalatal arches. Interventions such as headgear, Nance button, intrusion arches, and differential moments were also employed (Table 2).
Anchorage loss was a common finding for all control interventions. In the test groups, anchorage loss was also associated with indirect anchorage using mid-palatal implants. Mesial tooth migration was always lower in indirect anchorage mode compared to conventional anchorage groups (if evaluated) [5, 54, 57].
Serial posts:
- Abstract : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Review : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Methods : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- Methods : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- Methods : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [3]
- Methods : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [3]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
- Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [5]
- Discussion : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- Discussion : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- Conclusions : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [3]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [4]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [5]
- References : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [6]
- Acknowledgements : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Author information : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [1]
- Author information : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [2]
- Ethics declarations : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Additional file : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Rights and permissions : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- About this article : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Table 1 List of excluded studies (with reason) (Of: Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant)
- Table 2 Characteristics of the included studies (TPA transpalatal arch, RCT randomized controlled clinical trial, CCT controlled clinical trial) (Of: Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant)
- Table 3 Risk of bias judgment according to the Cochrane Collaboration (Of: Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant)
- Fig. 1. PRISMA study flow diagram : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 2. Graphic visualization of the risk of bias judgements : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 3. Forest plot for anchorage loss in the horizontal dimension : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 4. Forest plot for anchorage loss in the vertical dimension : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 5. Funnel plot for anchorage loss in the horizontal dimension (MD mean difference, SE standard error) : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant
- Fig. 6. Funnel plot for anchorage loss in the vertical dimension (MD mean difference, SE standard error) : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implant