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
Review
. 2018 Oct 25;4(1):35.
doi: 10.1186/s40729-018-0144-4.

Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kathrin Becker  1 , Annika Pliska  2 , Caroline Busch  2 , Benedict Wilmes  2 , Michael Wolf  3 , Dieter Drescher  2
Affiliations
Review

Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Kathrin Becker et al. Int J Implant Dent. .

Abstract

Background/aim: Retraction of the upper incisors/canines requires maximum anchorage. The aim of the present study was to analyze the efficacy of mini implants in comparison to conventional devices in patients with need for en masse retraction of the front teeth in the upper jaw.

Material and methods: An electronic search of PubMed, Web of Science, and EMBASE and hand searching were performed. Relevant articles were assessed, and data were extracted for statistical analysis. A random effects model, weighted mean differences (WMD), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed for horizontal and vertical anchorage loss at the first molars in the analyzed patient treatments.

Results: A total of seven RCTs employing direct anchorage through implants in the alveolar ridge were finally considered for qualitative and quantitative analysis, and further five publications were considered for the qualitative analysis only (three studies: indirect anchorage through implant in the mid-palate, two studies: direct/indirect anchorage in the alveolar ridge). In the control groups, anchorage was achieved through transpalatal arches, headgear, Nance buttons, intrusion arches, and differential moments. WMD [95% CI, p] in anchorage loss between test and control groups amounted to - 2.79 mm [- 3.56 to - 2.03 mm, p < 0.001] in the horizontal and - 1.76 mm [- 2.56 to - 0.97, p < 0.001] favoring skeletal anchorage over control measures. The qualitative analysis revealed that minor anchorage loss can be associated with indirect anchorage, whereas anchorage gain was commonly associated with direct anchorage. Implant failures were comparable for both anchorage modalities (direct 9.9%, indirect 8.6%).

Conclusion: Within its limitations, the meta-analysis revealed that maximum anchorage en masse retraction can be achieved by orthodontic mini implants and direct anchorage; however, the ideal implant location (palate versus alveolar ridge) and the beneficial effect of direct over indirect anchorage needs to be further evaluated.

Keywords: Bone screws; En masse retraction; Meta-analysis; Micro implants; Mini implants; Orthodontic anchorage procedures; Systematic review; TAD.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

Kathrin Becker, Annika Pliska, Caroline Busch, Benedict Wilmes, Michael Wolf, and Dieter Drescher declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA study flow diagram
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Graphic visualization of the risk of bias judgements
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Forest plot for anchorage loss in the horizontal dimension
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Forest plot for anchorage loss in the vertical dimension
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Funnel plot for anchorage loss in the horizontal dimension (MD mean difference, SE standard error)
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Funnel plot for anchorage loss in the vertical dimension (MD mean difference, SE standard error)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. 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. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alharbi Fahad, Almuzian Mohammed, Bearn David. Miniscrews failure rate in orthodontics: systematic review and meta-analysis. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2018;40(5):519–530. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjx093. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Barros SE, Janson G, Chiqueto K, Baldo VO, Baldo TO. Root resorption of maxillary incisors retracted with and without skeletal anchorage. A J Orthod Dent Orthop. 2017;151(2):397–406. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.06.048. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Basha AG, Shantaraj R, Mogegowda SB. Comparative study between conventional en-masse retraction (sliding mechanics) and en-masse retraction using orthodontic micro implant. Implant Dent. 2010;19(2):128–136. doi: 10.1097/ID.0b013e3181cc4aa5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. 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 Dentofac Orthop. 2007;132(5):606–615. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.040. - DOI - PubMed