Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
MedNext Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
Review
DOI: 10.54448/mdnt22S209
Submitted: 05-04-2022
Published: 05-04-2022

Advance in contemporary orthodontics: a systematic review

UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORP - University Center North Paulista - Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil; UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Orthodontic treatment Mini-implants Anchoring system Skeletal anchorage

Abstract

Introduction: During orthodontic treatment, careful planning is essential for its success, taking into account aspects such as facial harmony, functional occlusion, and esthetics. The anchorage system has been widely used by orthodontists due to its high level of success. In addition to replacing the use of extra and intraoral devices, mini-implants show a simple technique that does not require patient cooperation and less discomfort, enabling more movements predictable and balanced in a short treatment time. Objective: To report the types of mini-implants and their characteristics, addressing their advantages and disadvantages, insertion locations, indications, and contraindications, in order to promote general knowledge of orthodontic treatment with skeletal anchorage. Methods: Clinical studies with qualitative and/or quantitative analysis were included, following the rules of the systematic review-PRISMA. Results: The mini-implants are made in two types, such as self-tapping requires a drill and self-drilling that has a cut. Their use provides advantages such as a set of more agile, simple, and less invasive techniques, with minimal anatomical limitations, less cost, not depending on the patient's contribution, allowing the application of immediate load and increased predictability of movements. Disadvantages are considered when there is movement and loosening of the mini-implant, involvement of nerves and blood vessels during surgery, mucosal irritation, and gingival hyperplasia caused by poor hygiene causing pain and swelling. Conclusion: It is concluded that the mini-implant emerged to revolutionize orthodontic treatment through more precise movements, in a short time, facilitating more complex movements that other devices had difficulty performing. Its main characteristic is a high success rate, in addition to having a reduced size, which allows its insertion in several sites. Consequently, the skeletal anchorage device is an excellent method, as long as it is used according to indications and taking meticulous care from the ideal choice of the device to the moment of its insertion.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Charoenpong H, Ritprajak P. Effect of metal ions released from orthodontic mini-implants on osteoclastogenesis. Dent Med Probl. 2021 Aug 27. doi: 10.17219/dmp/133891. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34449135.
  2. Singh J, Singh SK, Gupta AR, Nayak SC, Vatsa R, Priyadarshni P. Comparative Evaluation of Primary Stability of Two Different Types of Orthodontic Mini-Implants. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2021 Jun;13(Suppl 1):S128-S131. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_604_20. Epub 2021 Jun 5. PMID: 34447060; PMCID: PMC8375815.
  3. Gurdan Z, Szalma J. Evaluation of the success and complication rates of self-drilling orthodontic mini-implants. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018 May;21(5):546-552. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_105_17. PMID: 29735852.
  4. Abbassy MA, Bakry AS, Zawawi KH, Hassan AH. Long-term durability of orthodontic mini-implants. Odontology. 2018 Apr;106(2):208-214. doi: 10.1007/s10266-017-0319-0. Epub 2017 Aug 24. PMID: 28840411.
  5. Nosouhian S, Rismanchian M, Sabzian R, Shadmehr E, Badrian H, Davoudi A. A Mini-review on the Effect of Mini-implants on Contemporary Orthodontic Science. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(Suppl 1):83-7. PMID: 26225113; PMCID: PMC4516069.
  6. Motoyoshi M. Clinical indices for orthodontic mini-implants. J Oral Sci. 2011 Dec;53(4):407-12. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.53.407. PMID: 22167023.
  7. Li GF, Yang ZJ, Wang TC, Zhang CX, Zhang JY, Chen JD, Cheng Y, Zhou J, Liu C. Meta-analysis dataset comparing orthodontic mini-implants and conventional anchorage reinforcement for maximum orthodontic anchorage. Data Brief. 2020 Jul 11;32:106010. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.106010. PMID: 32793770; PMCID: PMC7415823.
  8. Al-Sibaie S., Hajeer M.Y. 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;36:275–283. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046.
  9. 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. Dentofac. Orthop. 2008;134 doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025. 18-29.e1.
  10. Liu Y.H., Ding W.H., 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;36:687–695. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01976.x.
  11. Sandler J., Murray A., Thiruvenkatachari B., Gutierrez R., Speight P., O'Brien K. Effectiveness of 3 methods of anchorage reinforcement for maximum anchorage in adolescents: A 3-arm multicenter randomized clinical trial. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2014;146:10–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.03.020.
  12. Kuroda S., Yamada K., Deguchi T., Kyung H.-M., Takano-Yamamoto T. Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2009;135:302–309. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.038.
  13. Chopra S.S., Mukherjee M., Mitra R., Kochar G.D., Kadu A. Comparative evaluation of anchorage reinforcement between orthodontic implants and conventional anchorage in orthodontic management of bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Med J Armed Forces India. 2017;73:159–166. doi: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.01.003.
  14. Lee A.-Y., Kim Y.H. Comparison of movement of the upper dentition according to anchorage method: orthodontic mini-implant versus conventional anchorage reinforcement in class I malocclusion. ISRN Dent. 2011. 2011 doi: 10.5402/2011/321206.
  15. Yao C.-C.J., Lai E.H.-H., Chang J.Z.-C., Chen I., Chen Y.-J. Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2008;134:615–624. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.12.022.
  16. Koyama I., Iino S., Abe Y., Takano-Yamamoto T., Miyawaki S. Differences between sliding mechanics with implant anchorage and straight-pull headgear and intermaxillary elastics in adults with bimaxillary protrusion. Eur. J. Orthod. 2011;33:126–131. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq047.
  17. Chen M., Li Z.-M., Liu X., Cai B., Wang D.-W., Feng Z.-C. Differences of treatment outcomes between self-ligating brackets with microimplant and headgear anchorages in adults with bimaxillary protrusion. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2015;147:465–471. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.029.
  18. Park H.-M., Kim B.-H., Yang I.-H., Baek S.-H. Preliminary three-dimensional analysis of tooth movement and arch dimension change of the maxillary dentition in Class II division 1 malocclusion treated with first premolar extraction: conventional anchorage vs. mini-implant anchorage. Korean J. Orthod. 2012;42:280–290. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2012.42.6.280.
  19. Lai E.H.-H., Yao C.-C.J., Chang J.Z.-C., Chen I., Chen Y.-J. Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop. 2008;134:636–645. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.017.

How to Cite

Pelarin, K. C., Pereira da Cruz, J. A., Moura Neto, G., & Moura, R. F. (2022). Advance in contemporary orthodontics: a systematic review. MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 3(S2). https://doi.org/10.54448/mdnt22S209