One palatal implant for skeletal anchorage – frequency and range of indications

Head & Face Medicine

Heinrich Wehrbein¹  Zeynep Yildizhan¹  Elena Krieger¹ 

[1] Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Augustusplatz 2, Mainz, 55131, Germany

关键词: Skeletal anchorage;    Frequency;    Indication;    Orthodontic treatment;    Ortho system;    Palatal implant;   

Others  :  1209182
DOI  :  10.1186/s13005-015-0073-x

 received in 2015-01-23, accepted in 2015-04-14,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Objective

Aim of this investigation was to analyze the frequency and range of indications of orthodontic treatments using one palatal implant for skeletal anchorage, in a time frame of four years.

Material and methods

A sample was comprised by viewing retrospectively the patient collective of a specialized university clinic who started orthodontic treatment in the time frame 01/09-12/12. Inclusion criterion was the first application of a superstructure within the investigated period after successful insertion of a palatal implant (Ortho-System®, Straumann, Basel, Switzerland). Frequency and range of indications of the conducted skeletally anchored tooth movement were determined by analyzing the individual patient documentation such as medical records, radiographs and casts.

Results

From a total of 1350 patients who started orthodontic treatment in this period met 56 (=4.2%) the inclusion criterion. In 85.7% of this sample was sagittal orthodontic tooth movement conducted, most frequently mesialization of ≥1 tooth (44.6%). Vertical tooth movement was in 57.1% of the sample performed, mostly extrusion of ≥1 tooth (34%). In 33.9% of the sample was ≥1 displaced tooth orthodontically relocated. One or two upper incisors were in 16.1% of the sample permanently replaced by the superstructure, all but one even after orthodontic treatment. In 66.1% of all cases were multi-functional anchorage challenges performed.

Conclusion

4.2 % of all treated patients within the investigated period required orthodontic treatment with skeletal anchorage (palatal implant), mainly for performing sagittal tooth movement (mesialization). The palatal implant was primarily used for multi-functional anchorage purposes, including skeletally anchored treatment in the mandible.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Krieger et al.; licensee Biomed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Schätzle M, Männchen R, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20:1351-9.
• [2]Wehrbein H. Bone quality in the midpalate for temporary anchorage devices. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009; 20:45-9.
• [3]Jung BA, Kunkel M, Göllner P, Liechti T, Wagner W, Wehrbein H. Prognostic parameters contributing to palatal implant failures: a long-term survival analysis of 239 patients. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012; 23:746-50.
• [4]Rodriguez JC, Suarez F, Chan HL, Padial-Molina M, Wang HL. Implants for orthodontic anchorage: success rates and reasons of failures. Implant Dent. 2014; 23:155-61.
• [5]Wehrbein H, Merz BR, Diedrich P, Glatzmaier J. The use of palatal implants for orthodontic anchorage. Design and clinical application of the orthosystem. Clin Oral Implants Res. 1996; 7:410-6.
• [6]Jung BA, Kunkel M, Göllner P, Liechti T, Wehrbein H. Success rate of second-generation palatal implants. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79:85-90.
• [7]Jung BA, Harzer W, Gedrange T, Kunkel M, Moergel M, Diedrich P et al.. Spectrum of indications for palatal implants in treatment concepts involving immediate and conventional loading. J Orofac Orthop. 2010; 71:273-80.
• [8]Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Pauls A, Drescher D. Multipurpose use of orthodontic mini-implants to achieve different treatment goals. J Orofac Orthop. 2012; 73:467-76.
• [9]Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP, Papadopoulos MA. Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142:577-95.
• [10]Meursinge Reynders R, Ronchi L, Ladu L, van Etten-Jamaludin F, Bipat S. Insertion torque and success of orthodontic mini-implants: a systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012; 142:596-614.
• [11]Migliorati M, Benedicenti S, Signori A, Drago S, Cirillo P, Barberis F et al.. Thread shape factor: evaluation of three different orthodontic miniscrews stability. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35:401-5.
• [12]Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Pauls A, Yamaguchi S, Ludwig B, Drescher D. Treatment efficiency of mini-implant-borne distalization depending on age and second-molar eruption. J Orofac Orthop. 2014; 75:118-32.
• [13]Seo YJ, Chung KR, Kim SH, Nelson G. Camouflage treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion with asymmetry using a bone-borne rapid maxillary expander. Angle Orthod 2014, 17. [Epub ahead of print].
• [14]Yanagita T, Nakamura M, Kawanabe N, Yamashiro T. Class II malocclusion with complex problems treated with a novel combination of lingual orthodontic appliances and lingual arches. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 146:98-107.
• [15]Janssen KI, Raghoebar GM, Vissink A, Sandham A. Skeletal anchorage in orthodontics - a review of various systems in animal and human studies. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2008; 23:75-88.
• [16]Reynders R, Ronchi L, Bipat S. Mini-implants in orthodontics: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135:564-e1-19.
• [17]Wehrbein H, Göllner P. Skeletal anchorage in orthodontics - basics and clinical application. J Orofac Orthop. 2007; 68:443-61.
• [18]Papadopoulos MA, Tarawneh F. The use of miniscrew implants for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontics: a comprehensive review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Path Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 103:e6-15.
• [19]Leung MT, Lee TC, Rabie A, Wong RW. Use of miniscrews and miniplates in orthodontics. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2008; 66:1461-6.
• [20]Baumgaertel S. Temporary skeletal anchorage devices: the case for miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 145:558-64.
• [21]Sugawara J. Temporary skeletal anchorage devices: the case for miniplates. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014; 145:559-65.
• [22]Mommaerts MY, Nols V, De Pauw G. Long-term prospective study of an orthodontic bone anchor. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2014; 29:419-26.