Permanent URL to this publication: http://dx.doi.org/10.5167/uzh-24184
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.
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.
|Item Type:||Journal Article, refereed, further contribution|
|Communities & Collections:||04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic for Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry|
|DDC:||610 Medicine & health|
|Deposited On:||25 Nov 2009 15:26|
|Last Modified:||27 Nov 2013 23:31|
|Citations:||Web of Science®. Times Cited: 42|
Scopus®. Citation Count: 49
Users (please log in): suggest update or correction for this item
Repository Staff Only: item control page