Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multipurpose use of orthodontic mini-implants to achieve different treatment goals

Mehrfachnutzung von Mini-Implantaten für verschiedene Aufgaben

  • Original article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The goal of the study was to determine whether mini-implants inserted in the palate can be used to achieve more than one treatment goal consecutively or simultaneously in the same patient.

Materials and methods

The treatment results of 43 patients were retrospectively assessed. Two implant-supported mechanical systems per patient were applied either consecutively in 19 patients (group A) or simultaneously in 24 patients (group B). Both groups were analyzed and compared by calculating success rates for achievement of the treatment goals, survival of the mini-implants, and quality of anchorage. Durations of treatment were also analyzed for intergroup differences.

Results

Except for a single case in group A, the treatment goals were achieved in all patients (success rates 94.7% in group A versus 100% in group B). Anchorage loss was confined to one patient per group (success rates 94.7% in group A and 95.3% in group B). Mini-implant mobility, and hence implant failure, was observed in three implants in group A (survival rate 91.8%) and two implants in group B (survival rate 95.6%). While none of these intergroup differences were statistically significant, the treatment durations in both groups differed widely: those in group B were significantly shorter (10.0 ± 4.2 months) than those in group A (14.4 ± 3.5 months; p = 0.001).

Conclusion

Mini-implants inserted in the palate for skeletal anchorage can be used to achieve more than one treatment goal in the same patient. Such multipurpose application can succeed consecutively and simultaneously. The latter option can significantly expedite treatments and should, therefore, be preferred when feasible, depending on the nature of coexisting therapeutic indications in a given patient.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

Ziel der Studie war es zu evaluieren, ob mit Hilfe von Mini-Implantaten im Gaumen mehrere Behandlungsaufgaben nacheinander oder simultan lösbar sind.

Methode

Die Behandlung von 43 Patienten wurde retrospektiv untersucht. Bei 19 Patienten (Gruppe A) erfolgte ein konsekutiver Einsatz zweier implantatgetragener Mechaniken, bei 24 (Gruppe B) wurden die Mini-Implantate simultan durch zwei Mechaniken belastet. Anschließend wurden die Erfolgsraten bezüglich des Erreichens des Behandlungszieles, der Überlebensrate der Mini-Implantate sowie der Verankerungsqualität ermittelt und verglichen. Weiterhin wurde die Behandlungsdauer auf Unterschiede zwischen den Gruppen untersucht.

Ergebnisse

Bis auf eine Ausnahme in Gruppe A konnten alle Behandlungsaufgaben gelöst werden (Erfolgsrate Gruppe A: 94,7%; Gruppe B: 100%). Lediglich bei einem Patienten je Gruppe trat ein Verankerungsverlust auf (Erfolgsraten Gruppe A: 94,7%; Gruppe B: 95,3%). Es kam zur Lockerung von drei Mini-Implantaten in Gruppe A (Überlebensrate 91,8%) und zwei in Gruppe B (Überlebensrate 95,6%). Die Unterschiede zwischen den Gruppen waren statistisch nicht signifikant. Die Behandlungsdauer betrug in Gruppe A 14,4 ± 3,5, in Gruppe B 10,0 ± 4,2 Monate und war damit in Gruppe B hoch signifikant kürzer (p = 0,001).

Schlussfolgerung

Mittels skeletaler Verankerung durch Mini-Implantate im Gaumen können mehrere Behandlungsaufgaben sowohl konsekutiv als auch simultan gelöst werden. Wegen der signifikant kürzeren Behandlungsdauer sollte eine simultane Nutzung angestrebt werden, sofern die zu behandelnden Befunde es zulassen.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

References

  1. Berens A, Wiechmann D, Dempf R (2006) Mini- and micro-screws for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontic therapy. J Orofac Orthop 67:450–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Chen CH, Chang CS, Hsieh CH et al (2006) The use of microimplants in orthodontic anchorage. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 64:1209–1213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen YH, Chang HH, Chen YJ et al (2008) Root contact during insertion of miniscrews for orthodontic anchorage increases the failure rate: an animal study. Clin Oral Implants Res 19:99–106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Cheng SJ, Tseng IY, Lee JJ et al (2004) A prospective study of the risk factors associated with failure of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19:100–106

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Diedrich P (1993) Different orthodontic anchorage systems. A critical examination. Fortschr Kieferorthop 54:156–171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Freudenthaler JW, Haas R, Bantleon HP (2001) Bicortical titanium screws for critical orthodontic anchorage in the mandible: a preliminary report on clinical applications. Clin Oral Implants Res 12:358–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fritz U, Ehmer A, Diedrich P (2004) Clinical suitability of titanium microscrews for orthodontic anchorage-preliminary experiences. J Orofac Orthop 65:410–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kanomi R (1997) Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod 31:763–767

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Kim HJ, Yun HS, Park HD et al (2006) Soft-tissue and cortical-bone thickness at orthodontic implant sites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130:177–182

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Kokich VG, Mathews DP (1993) Surgical and orthodontic management of impacted teeth. Dent Clin North Am 37:181–204

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kuroda S, Yamada K, Deguchi T et al (2007) Root proximity is a major factor for screw failure in orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131:68–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lai EH, Yao CC, Chang JZ et al (2008) Three-dimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 134:636–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Melsen B, Bosch C (1997) Different approaches to anchorage: a survey and an evaluation. Angle Orthod 67:23–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Melsen B, Costa A (2000) Immediate loading of implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Clin Orthod Res 3:23–28

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M et al (2003) Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 124:373–378

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Park HS, Bae SM, Kyung HM et al (2001) Micro-implant anchorage for treatment of skeletal Class I bialveolar protrusion. J Clin Orthod 35:417–422

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Paulson RC, Speidel TM, Isaacson RJ (1970) A laminagraphic study of cuspid retraction versus molar anchorage loss. Angle Orthod 40:20–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Schatzle M, Mannchen R, Zwahlen M et al (2009) Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 20:1351–1359

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Stanford N (2011) Mini-screws success rates sufficient for orthodontic treatment. Evid Based Dent 12:19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Su YY (2009) Primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants: analysis of biomechanical properties and clinical relevance. Dissertation Medizinische Fakultät. Heinrich-Heine-Universität, Düsseldorf, Germany

  21. Wehrbein H, Merz BR, Diedrich P et al (1996) The use of palatal implants for orthodontic anchorage. Design and clinical application of the orthosystem. Clin Oral Implants Res 7:410–416

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wiechmann D, Meyer U, Buchter A (2007) Success rate of mini- and micro-implants used for orthodontic anchorage: a prospective clinical study. Clin Oral Implants Res 18:263–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wilmes B (2008) Fields of application of mini-implants. In: Ludwig B, Baumgaertl S, Bowmann J (eds) Mini-implants in orthodontics: innovative anchorage concepts. Quintessence, Berlin, pp 91–122

  24. Wilmes B, Drescher D (2011) Impact of bone quality, implant type, and implantation site preparation on insertion torques of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 40:697–703

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wilmes B, Drescher D (2008) A miniscrew system with interchangeable abutments. J Clin Orthod 42(10):574–580, 595

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Wilmes B, Drescher D (2009) Impact of insertion depth and predrilling diameter on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Angle Orthod 79:609–614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilmes B, Drescher D, Nienkemper M (2009) A miniplate system for improved stability of skeletal anchorage. J Clin Orthod 43:494–501

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Wilmes B, Nienkemper M, Drescher D (2010) Application and effectiveness of a mini-implant- and tooth-borne rapid palatal expansion device: the hybrid hyrax. World J Orthod 11:323–330

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wilmes B, Ottenstreuer S, Su YY et al (2008) Impact of implant design on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. J Orofac Orthop 69:42–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Wilmes B, Rademacher C, Olthoff G et al (2006) Parameters affecting primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. J Orofac Orthop 67:162–174

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states the following: PD Dr. Wilmes is a consultant for the company PSM Medical Solutions.

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an: PD Dr. Wilmes ist beratend tätig für die Firma PSM Medical Solutions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Policlinic of Orthodontics, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, 40225, Düsseldorf, Germany

    M. Nienkemper, B. Wilmes, A. Pauls & D. Drescher

Authors
  1. M. Nienkemper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Wilmes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A. Pauls
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. Drescher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Nienkemper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Nienkemper, M., Wilmes, B., Pauls, A. et al. Multipurpose use of orthodontic mini-implants to achieve different treatment goals. J Orofac Orthop 73, 467–476 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0107-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-012-0107-y

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation