A growing number of studies have reported that mini-implants do not remain in exactly the same position during treatment, although they remain stable. The aim of this review was to collect data regarding primary displ...A growing number of studies have reported that mini-implants do not remain in exactly the same position during treatment, although they remain stable. The aim of this review was to collect data regarding primary displacement immediately straight after loading and secondary displacement over time. A systematic review was performed to investigate primary and secondary displacement. The amount and type of displacement were recorded. A total of 27 studies were included. Sixteen in vitro studies or studies using finite element analysis addressed primary displacement, and nine clinical studies and two animal studies addressed secondary displacement. Significant primary displacement was detected （6.4-24.4 μm） for relevant orthodontic forces （0.5-2.5 N）. The mean secondary displacement ranged from 0 to 2.7 mm for entire mini-implants, The maximum values for each clinical study ranged from 1.0 to 4.1 mm for the head, 1.0 to 1.5 for the body and 1,0 to 1.92 mm for the tail part. The most frequent type of movement was controlled tipping or bodily movement. Primary displacement did not reach a clinically significant level. However, clinicians can expect relevant secondary displacement in the direction of force. Consequently, decentralized insertion within the inter-radicular space, away from force direction, might be favourable. More evidence is needed to provide quantitative recommendations.展开更多
AIM: To investigate the success rate of mini-implants and its characteristics and risk factors by survival analyses. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-four miniimplants of the same type were placed by a single clinici...AIM: To investigate the success rate of mini-implants and its characteristics and risk factors by survival analyses. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-four miniimplants of the same type were placed by a single clinician. Age, gender, treatment duration, time of failure, side and jaw of implantation and the soft tissue at placement site were recorded. Odds ratio, survival curves, and Cox proportional hazard model were applied to evaluate the factors influencing the miniimplants' success rate. RESULTS: The cumulative success rate was 88.1%.The maxilla had a significantly higher success rate than that of the mandible(91.7% vs 83.7%, respectively, P = 0.019). Placement of mini-implants in the attached gingiva(AG) showed a higher success rate than that of the mucogingival junction(MGJ) and mucous membrane(MM)(AG, 94.3%; MGJ, 85.8%; MM, 79.4%; P < 0.001). Significant association was found between the jaw and the gingival tissue type(P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between maxilla and mandible when compared within each placement site.CONCLUSION: The gingival tissue type had the most significant effect on the success rate of the mini-implant with higher success rate in the attached gingiva.展开更多
<b><span>Background:</span></b><span> The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess whether mini-</span><span>implants </span><span>have</span><span&g...<b><span>Background:</span></b><span> The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess whether mini-</span><span>implants </span><span>have</span><span> added benefit in terms of implants success rate and average bone loss over conventional-sized implants after one year of follow-up.</span><span> </span><b><span>Methods: </span></b><span>An electronic search of randomized clinical trials was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science for studies including complete or partial edentulous patients requiring two or four mini-implants or conventional/</span><span> </span><span>standard-sized implants in the maxilla or mandible for implant-supported removable prostheses who completed 12 months of follow-up. </span><b><span>Results:</span></b><span> The search provided 194 unique articles which were screened for title and abstract. Screening generated 12 articles which went through full-text analysis using eligibility criteria, and 4 articles were included for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated a non-significant difference in the success rate between the two interventions (OR = 1.69 [0.74, 3.85;p = 0.21]). Bone loss estimates resulted in a significant bone reduction (Mean Difference = </span><span>-</span><span>0.74 [</span><span>-</span><span>0.95, </span><span>-</span><span>0.53;p < 0.05]) in favor of two mini-implants when compared with two conventional-sized implants, but when compared four mini</span><span>- </span><span> </span><span>with two conventional-sized implants</span><span>,</span><span> the estimates were non-significant </span><span>(Mean Difference = </span><span>-</span><span>0.24 [</span><span>-</span><span>0.69, 0.20;p = 0.29]). </span><b><span>Conclusion: </span></b><span>The current evidence does not provide solid evidence of the benefits of one intervention over the other. More studies with follow-up times of 10 and more years are needed as current studies have described the short-term outcomes.</span>展开更多
文摘A growing number of studies have reported that mini-implants do not remain in exactly the same position during treatment, although they remain stable. The aim of this review was to collect data regarding primary displacement immediately straight after loading and secondary displacement over time. A systematic review was performed to investigate primary and secondary displacement. The amount and type of displacement were recorded. A total of 27 studies were included. Sixteen in vitro studies or studies using finite element analysis addressed primary displacement, and nine clinical studies and two animal studies addressed secondary displacement. Significant primary displacement was detected （6.4-24.4 μm） for relevant orthodontic forces （0.5-2.5 N）. The mean secondary displacement ranged from 0 to 2.7 mm for entire mini-implants, The maximum values for each clinical study ranged from 1.0 to 4.1 mm for the head, 1.0 to 1.5 for the body and 1,0 to 1.92 mm for the tail part. The most frequent type of movement was controlled tipping or bodily movement. Primary displacement did not reach a clinically significant level. However, clinicians can expect relevant secondary displacement in the direction of force. Consequently, decentralized insertion within the inter-radicular space, away from force direction, might be favourable. More evidence is needed to provide quantitative recommendations.
文摘AIM: To investigate the success rate of mini-implants and its characteristics and risk factors by survival analyses. METHODS: Three hundred and ninety-four miniimplants of the same type were placed by a single clinician. Age, gender, treatment duration, time of failure, side and jaw of implantation and the soft tissue at placement site were recorded. Odds ratio, survival curves, and Cox proportional hazard model were applied to evaluate the factors influencing the miniimplants' success rate. RESULTS: The cumulative success rate was 88.1%.The maxilla had a significantly higher success rate than that of the mandible(91.7% vs 83.7%, respectively, P = 0.019). Placement of mini-implants in the attached gingiva(AG) showed a higher success rate than that of the mucogingival junction(MGJ) and mucous membrane(MM)(AG, 94.3%; MGJ, 85.8%; MM, 79.4%; P < 0.001). Significant association was found between the jaw and the gingival tissue type(P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between maxilla and mandible when compared within each placement site.CONCLUSION: The gingival tissue type had the most significant effect on the success rate of the mini-implant with higher success rate in the attached gingiva.
文摘<b><span>Background:</span></b><span> The objective of this meta-analysis was to assess whether mini-</span><span>implants </span><span>have</span><span> added benefit in terms of implants success rate and average bone loss over conventional-sized implants after one year of follow-up.</span><span> </span><b><span>Methods: </span></b><span>An electronic search of randomized clinical trials was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) and Web of Science for studies including complete or partial edentulous patients requiring two or four mini-implants or conventional/</span><span> </span><span>standard-sized implants in the maxilla or mandible for implant-supported removable prostheses who completed 12 months of follow-up. </span><b><span>Results:</span></b><span> The search provided 194 unique articles which were screened for title and abstract. Screening generated 12 articles which went through full-text analysis using eligibility criteria, and 4 articles were included for meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of these studies indicated a non-significant difference in the success rate between the two interventions (OR = 1.69 [0.74, 3.85;p = 0.21]). Bone loss estimates resulted in a significant bone reduction (Mean Difference = </span><span>-</span><span>0.74 [</span><span>-</span><span>0.95, </span><span>-</span><span>0.53;p < 0.05]) in favor of two mini-implants when compared with two conventional-sized implants, but when compared four mini</span><span>- </span><span> </span><span>with two conventional-sized implants</span><span>,</span><span> the estimates were non-significant </span><span>(Mean Difference = </span><span>-</span><span>0.24 [</span><span>-</span><span>0.69, 0.20;p = 0.29]). </span><b><span>Conclusion: </span></b><span>The current evidence does not provide solid evidence of the benefits of one intervention over the other. More studies with follow-up times of 10 and more years are needed as current studies have described the short-term outcomes.</span>
