Miniscrews offer a reliable alternative for anchorage during orthodontic treatment, particularly for non-cooperative patients or periodontal patients with alveolar bone loss. The study aims at assessing the correlation of various clinical indicators with the success or failure of miniscrews used for anchorage during orthodontic treatment. Thirty-four consecutive patients with a cumulative total of 82 miniscrews implanted participated in the study. Generalized Estimating Equations were used to assess the correlation of various factors with success rates. The miniscrew was considered the unit of analysis clustered within site and within patient. The overall success rate of miniscrews was 90.2%. For every additional miniscrew used in a patient's oral cavity, the success rate was reduced by 67%. Retromandibular triangle and palatal placement and in movable mucosa resulted in lower success rate. The miniscrew length and diameter were found to correlate with success rates. Orthodontic force applied on miniscrews for uprighting purposes showed a lower success rate than that used for retraction. This study revealed that miniscrews present high success rates. The number of miniscrews used per patient, the miniscrew site placement, the soft tissue type of placement, the miniscrew length and diameter as well as the orthodontic force applied on the miniscrew showed significant correlation with success rates. Two researchers in Greece have identified reasons why ‘miniscrew’ dental implants may succeed or fail. They monitored 34 patients with a total of 82 miniscrews implanted in their mouths, and analyzed the factors that might contribute to miniscrews becoming infected or dislodged. They found that the length and diameter of the miniscrews, the site and method of miniscrew placement and, most importantly, the number of miniscrews implanted, showed significant correlations with success rates. Overall, the miniscrews had a success rate of 90.2%. Miniscrews are the preferred method of anchorage for many dental procedures, as they avoid the social stigma of external devices such as headgear, or the expensive surgery involved in osseo‐integration, where implants make direct functional connections to bone.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Topouzelis et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: