THE EFFECT OF MINI-IMPLANT SUPPORTED ANCHORAGE ON MAXILLARY INCISOR POSITION DURING RETRACTION- A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Year 2017, Volume: 51 Issue: 3 Suppl 1, 90 - 101, 17.11.2017

Yasas Shri Nalaka Jayaratne Flavio Uribe Nandakumar Janakiraman

Abstract

Purpose: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the antero-posterior, vertical and angular changes of maxillary incisors with conventional anchorage control techniques and mini-implant based space closure methods.

Materials and Methods: The electronic databases Pubmed, Scopus, ISI Web of knowledge, Cochrane Library and Open Grey were searched for potentially eligible studies using a set of predetermined keywords. Full texts meeting the inclusion criteria as well as their references were manually searched. The primary outcome data (linear, angular, and vertical maxillary incisor changes) and secondary outcome data (overbite changes, soft tissue changes, biomechanical factors, root resorption and treatment duration) were extracted from the selected articles and entered into spreadsheets based on the type of anchorage used. The methodological quality of each study was assessed.

Results: Six studies met the inclusion criteria. The amount of incisor retraction was greater with buccally placed mini-implants than conventional anchorage techniques. The incisor retraction with indirect anchorage from palatal mini-implants was less when compared with buccally placed mini-implants. Incisor intrusion occurred with buccal mini-implants, whereas extrusion was seen with conventional anchorage. Limited data on the biomechanical variables or adverse effects such as root resorption were reported in these studies.

Conclusion: More RCT’s that take in to account relevant biomechanical variables and employ three-dimensional quantification of tooth movements are required to provide information on  incisor changes during space closure.

Keywords

Maxillary incisors, mini-implant; retraction; anchorage; systematic review

References

• Bills DA, Handelman CS, BeGole EA. Bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion: Traits and orthodontic correction. Angle Orthod 2005;75(3):333-339.
• Bishara SE, Cummins DM, Jakobsen JR, Zaher AR. Dentofacial and soft tissue changes in class II, division 1 cases treated with and without extractions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107(1):28-37.
• Guo Y, Han X, Xu H, Ai D, Zeng H, Bai D. Morphological characteristics influencing the orthodontic extraction strategies for angle's class II division 1 malocclusions. Prog Orthod 2014;15(1):44.
• Janson G, Brambilla Ada C, Henriques JF, de Freitas MR, Neves LS. Class ii treatment success rate in 2- and 4-premolar extraction protocols. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125(4):472-479.
• Markic G, Katsaros C, Pandis N, Eliades T. Temporary anchorage device usage: A survey among swiss orthodontists. Prog Orthod 2014;15(1):29.
• Tan TJ. Profile changes following orthodontic correction of bimaxillary protrusion with a preadjusted edgewise appliance. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg 1996;11(3):239-251.
• Zablocki HL, McNamara JA, Jr., Franchi L, Baccetti T. Effect of the transpalatal arch during extraction treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133(6):852-860.
• Thiruvenkatachari B, Ammayappan P, Kandaswamy R. Comparison of rate of canine retraction with conventional molar anchorage and titanium implant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(1):30-35.
• Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, Davidovitch M, Vardimon AD. Anchorage loss--a multifactorial response. Angle Orthod 2003;73(6):730-737.
• Davoody AR, Posada L, Utreja A, Janakiraman N, Neace WP, Uribe F, Nanda R. A prospective comparative study between differential moments and miniscrews in anchorage control. Eur J Orthod 2013;35(5):568-576.
• Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic anchorage: A systematic review. Angle Orthod 2006;76(3):493-501.
• Jambi S, Walsh T, Sandler J, Benson PE, Skeggs RM, O’Brien KD. Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods (Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 8.
• Yao CC, Lai EH, Chang JZ, Chen I, Chen YJ. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(5):615-624.
• Tominaga JY, Chiang PC, Ozaki H, Tanaka M, Koga Y, Bourauel C, Yoshida N. Effect of play between bracket and archwire on anterior tooth movement in sliding mechanics: A three-dimensional finite element study. J Dent Biomech 2012;3:1758736012461269.
• Tominaga JY, Tanaka M, Koga Y, Gonzales C, Kobayashi M, Yoshida N. Optimal loading conditions for controlled movement of anterior teeth in sliding mechanics. Angle Orthod 2009;79(6):1102-1107.
• Li F, Hu HK, Chen JW, Liu ZP, Li GF, He SS, Zou SJ, Ye QS. Comparison of anchorage capacity between implant and headgear during anterior segment retraction. Angle Orthod 2011;81(5):915-922.
• http://www.prisma-statement.org/.
• www.opengrey.eu/.
• Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Cochrane Bias Methods G, Cochrane Statistical Methods G. The cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
• Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane: Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
• Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The quorom statement. Quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Lancet 1999;354(9193):1896-1900.
• Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer MY. Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 2014;36(3):275-283.
• Benson PE, Tinsley D, O'Dwyer JJ, Majumdar A, Doyle P, Sandler PJ. Midpalatal implants vs headgear for orthodontic anchorage--a randomized clinical trial: Cephalometric results. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(5):606-615.
• Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Anchorage capacity of osseointegrated and conventional anchorage systems: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133(3):339 e319-328.
• Liu YH, Ding WH, Liu J, Li Q. Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36(9):687-695.
• Ma J, Wang L, Zhang W, Chen W, Zhao C, Smales RJ. Comparative evaluation of micro-implant and headgear anchorage used with a pre-adjusted appliance system. Eur J Orthod 2008;30(3):283-287.
• Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S. Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: A randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(1):18-29 e11.
• Thiruvenkatachari B, Al-Abdallah M, Akram NC, Sandler J, O'Brien K. Measuring 3-dimensional tooth movement with a 3-dimensional surface laser scanner. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135(4):480-485.