Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar;97(13):e0232.
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000010232.

Implants for orthodontic anchorage: An overview

Affiliations

Implants for orthodontic anchorage: An overview

Xiaowen Zheng et al. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Mar.

Abstract

Implantanchorage continues to receive much attention as an important orthodontic anchorage. Since the development of orthodontic implants, the scope of applications has continued to increase. Although multiple reviews detailing implants have been published, no comprehensive evaluations have been performed. Thus, the purpose of this study was to comprehensively evaluate the effects of implants based on data published in review articles.An electronic search of the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, Ebsco and Sicencedirect for reviews with "orthodontic" and "systematic review or meta analysis" in the title, abstract, keywords, or full text was performed. A subsequent manual search was then performed to identify reviews concerning orthodontic implants. A manual search of the orthodontic journals American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (AJODO), European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO), and Angle Othodontist was also performed. Such systematic reviews that evaluated the efficacy and safety of orthodontic implants were used to indicate success rates and molar movements.A total of 23 reviews were included in the analysis. The quality of each review was assessed using a measurement tool for Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), and the review chosen to summarize outcomes had a quality score of >6. Most reviews were less than moderate quality. Success rates of implants ranged in a broad scope, and movement of the maxillary first molar was superior with implants compared with traditional anchorage.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart illustrating the selection of relevant articles.

References

    1. Feldmann I, Bondemark L. Orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review. Angle Orthod 2006;76:493–501. - PubMed
    1. Li F, Hu HK, Chen JW, et al. Comparison of anchorage capacity between implant and headgear during anterior segment retraction. Angle Orthod 2011;81:915–22. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tsui WK, Chua HD, Cheung LK. Bone anchor systems for orthodontic application: a systematic review. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;41:1427–38. - PubMed
    1. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, et al. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011;11:15. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

Substances