UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

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


Schätzle, M; Männchen, R; Zwahlen, M; Lang, N P (2009). Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 20(12):1351-1359.

Abstract

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: Schätzle M, Männchen R, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review.

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: Schätzle M, Männchen R, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review.

Citations

73 citations in Web of Science®
84 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

480 downloads since deposited on 25 Nov 2009
54 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, further contribution
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Language:English
Date:December 2009
Deposited On:25 Nov 2009 15:26
Last Modified:05 Apr 2016 13:33
Publisher:Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN:0905-7161
Publisher DOI:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01754.x
Official URL:http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/122613624/PDFSTART
PubMed ID:19793320
Permanent URL: http://doi.org/10.5167/uzh-24184

Download

[img]
Preview
Content: Accepted Version
Filetype: PDF
Size: 1MB
View at publisher

TrendTerms

TrendTerms displays relevant terms of the abstract of this publication and related documents on a map. The terms and their relations were extracted from ZORA using word statistics. Their timelines are taken from ZORA as well. The bubble size of a term is proportional to the number of documents where the term occurs. Red, orange, yellow and green colors are used for terms that occur in the current document; red indicates high interlinkedness of a term with other terms, orange, yellow and green decreasing interlinkedness. Blue is used for terms that have a relation with the terms in this document, but occur in other documents.
You can navigate and zoom the map. Mouse-hovering a term displays its timeline, clicking it yields the associated documents.

Author Collaborations