Results : Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis [3]
In detail, anchorage loss associated with indirect anchorage and a mid-palatal implant amounted to 1.5 ± 2.6 mm versus 3 ± 3.4 mm [5], 0.7 ± 0.4 (right molar) and 1.1 ± 0.3 mm (left molar) [54], 1.73 ± 0.39 mm (horseshoe), and 0.36 ± 0.11 mm (posterior reinforcement) versus 4.21 ± 1.17 mm [57]. An anchorage loss of 0.2 ± 0.35 mm versus 2.0 mm ± 0.65 mm was also observed in one study employing indirect anchorage using two implants in the alveolar ridge [9].
In contrast, no anchorage loss [4] or anchorage gain/reverse anchorage loss (distal movement) was observed in the groups employing direct anchorage through implants located interdentally in the alveolar ridge [1, 11, 28, 48,49,50, 52].
Vertical anchorage loss with molar extrusion was another common observation for the control interventions [1, 11, 28, 49, 50, 52]. In the majority of the studies, molar intrusion was commonly associated with direct skeletal anchorage [11, 28, 48,49,50, 52], but one study observed a minor extrusion tendency of 0.02 ± 0.93 mm associated with direct anchorage [1]. Vertical anchorage loss associated with indirect anchorage has not been evaluated.
Transversal anchorage loss with a mean expansion of 1.73 ± 0.39 mm following retraction was observed in one study employing indirect anchorage through a mid-palatal mini implant coupled with a horseshoe arch [57]. This tendency of transversal expansion could be reduced to 0.36 ± 0.11 mm by integration of a posterior reinforcement element. In contrast, a significant decrease in inter-molar width was observed in two studies employing direct anchorage through mini implants in the alveolar ridge [48, 50]. The inter-molar width reduction amounted to − 1.83 ± 1.29 mm [50] and may be counterbalanced by a transpalatal arch or by applying buccal crown torque on the molars [48]. The remaining studies, which analyzed lateral cephalograms only, did not report on anchorage loss in the transversal dimension. None of the studies compared transversal changes following skeletal anchorage with conventional control measures.
In the test groups, the monthly rate of posterior movement from the incisors amounted to 0.35 mm with a mean retraction duration of 12.9 months [1], 0.85 mm with a mean retraction duration of 6.0 months [4], 0.11 mm with a mean retraction duration of 21.76 months [9], 0.28 mm with a mean retraction duration of 26 months [28], 0.85 mm with a mean retraction duration of 8.61 months [49], and 0.44 mm with a mean retraction duration of 9.4 months [48].
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