Використання дентальних імплантатів та мікроімплантатів під час ортодонтичного лікування стоматологічних хворих

A. Bobokal

doi:10.33295/1992-576X-2025-2-10

Authors

A. Bobokal Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0341-5642

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.33295/1992-576X-2025-2-10

Keywords:

dental implants, mini-implants, orthodontics, anchorage

Abstract

Relevance. Anchors (stable supports) are one of the most essential components of successful orthodontic treatment. Traditionally, orthodontics uses teeth and extra- or intraoral appliances for retention, and their effectiveness often depends on the patient’s willingness. Micro-implants (OMI) in orthodontics are called temporary anchor devices (TADs) or mini-implants. Or mini-screws are used to perform complex orthodontic movements. Orthodontic mini-implants can be an effective adjunct in resolving complex displacements.

Aim: analyze the literature and assess the frequency of rejection and factors affecting the stability and success of temporary anchorage devices (TADs) used as orthodontic retainers.
Material and methods. Data were collected from electronic databases PubMed and Google Scholar. The following inclusion criteria were used to select eligible articles: English-language articles containing prospective and retrospective clinical and experimental studies of implants and screws used as orthodontic retention devices. The search yielded 209 abstracts on TADs used as anchors. After reviewing and applying the selection criteria, 66 articles were included in the study. The data obtained was divided into two themes: factors that influenced the success rate of TADs, and to what extent and in how many papers these factors were cited. Clinical characteristics were divided into three main groups: patient-related, implant-related, and treatment-related. Although all papers included in this literature review reported success rates of 80% or higher, the factors determining success rates were inconsistent across all studies reviewed, making it difficult to draw any conclusions.

Results. The overall success rate of skeletal fixation with micro-implants was 79%. The success rate was independent of gender, age, and side of placement and increased significantly with increasing total and cancellous bone density. The success rate of OMI did not correlate significantly with cortical bone density. No correlation was found between the six self-drilling micro-implant diameters and torque values. Screw tightening speed had no significant effect on peak torque values, but 6 mm OMI was shown to have significantly higher torque values than 8 mm and 10 mm OMI. Some investigators have reported the effectiveness of using radiographic templates and film holders to create a surgical template for OMI insertion. The success rate of OMI increased significantly with increasing OMI length and placement height, as well as with decreasing angle.

Conclusions. Considering the study’s results, it can be concluded that the success of micro implants includes factors related to the patient, the orthodontist, and the design and material of these devices. Due to their numerous advantages, micro implants should be widely used in modern orthodontic practice for the treatment of all possible occlusion pathologies.
The proposed methods for measuring the diagonal dimensions of dental arches are based on the position of the interdental point, which can change its position in case of anomalies in the shape and size of dental arches. That is why optimizing methods for determining the shape and size of dental arches, considering the individual characteristics of the maxillofacial region within the framework of modern orthodontic diagnostics, requires a more in-depth and detailed study to improve diagnostic and therapeutic measures.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

A. Bobokal, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine

Candidate of Medical Sciences, Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Propaedeutics of Orthopedic Dentistry

References

Vachiramon, A., Urata, M., Kyung, H.M., Yamashita, D.-D., Yen, S.L.-K. (2009). Clinical applications of orthodontic microimplant anchorage in craniofacial patients. Cleft. Palate Craniofac. J., 46(2), 136-146. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1597/06-219.1.

Leo, M., Cerroni, L., Pasquantonio, G. (2016). Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) in orthodontics: Review of the factors that influence the clinical success rate of the mini-implants. Clin. Ter., 167, e70–e77. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7417/CT.2016.1936.

Ngan, P., Moon, W. (2015). Evolution of Class III treatment in orthodontics. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 148(1), 22–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.012.

Kyung, H., Ly, N., Hong, M. (2017). Orthodontic skeletal anchorage: Up-to-date review. Orthod. Waves, 76(3), 123–132. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2017.06.002.

The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for Use in JBI Systematic Reviews Checklist for Case Reports. URL: http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html.

Park, J.H., Chae, J.-M., Bay, R.C., Kim, M.-J., Lee, K.-Y., Chang, N.-Y. (2018). Evaluation of factors influencing the success rate of orthodontic microimplants using panoramic radiographs. Korean J. Orthod., 48(1), 30–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2018.48.1.30.

Crismani, A.G., Bertl, M., Celar, A.G.; Bantleon, H.-P.; Burstone, C.J. (2010). Miniscrews in orthodontic treatment: Review and analysis of published clinical trials. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 137(1), 108–113. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.01.027.

Park, J., Cho, H.J. (2009). Three-dimensional evaluation of interradicular spaces and cortical bone thickness for the placement and initial stability of microimplants in adults. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 136(3), 314, e1–12, discussion 314–315. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.01.023.

Lee, M.-Y., Park, J.H., Kim, S.-C., Kang, K.-H., Cho, J.-H., Chang, N.-Y., Chae, J.-M. (2016). Bone density effects on the success rate of orthodontic microimplants evaluated with cone-beam computed tomography. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 149(2), 217–224. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.07.037.

Kim, K.-D., Yu, W.-J., Park, H.-S., Kyung, H.-M., Kwon, O.-W. (2011). Optimization of orthodontic microimplant thread design. Korean J. Orthod., 41(1), 25–35. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.1.25.

Whang, C.Z.Y., Bister, D., Sherriff, M. (2011). An in vitro investigation of peak insertion torque values of six commercially availablemini-implants. Eur. J. Orthod., 33(6), 660–666. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq129.

Wu, J.C., Huang, J.-N., Zhao, S.-F., Xu, X.-J., Xie, Z.-J. (2006). Radiographic and surgical template for placement of orthodontic microimplants in interradicular areas: A technical note. Int. J. Oral. Maxillofac. Implant., 21(4), 629–634. PMID: 16955616.

Lakshmikantha, H.T., Ravichandran, N.K., Jeon, M., Kim, J., Park, H.-S. (2018). Assessment of cortical bone microdamage following insertion of microimplants using optical coherence tomography: A preliminary study. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B, 19(11), 818–828. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1631/jzus.B1700612.

Zhao, H., Gu, X.-M., Liu, H.-C., Wang, Z.-W., Xun, C.-L. (2013). Measurement of cortical bone thickness in adults by cone-beam computerized tomography for orthodontic miniscrews placement. J. Huazhong Univ. Sci. Technolog. Med. Sci., 33(2), 303–308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11596-013-1115-x.

Thiruvenkatachari, B., Pavithranand, A., Rajasigamani, K., Kyung, H.M. (2006). Comparison and measurement of the amount of anchorage loss of the molars with and without the use of implant anchorage during canine retraction. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 129(4), 551–554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.014.

Davis, D., Krishnaraj, R., Duraisamy, S., Ravi, K., Dilip, S., Charles, A., Sushil, N. (2018). Comparison of rate of canine retraction and anchorage potential between mini-implant and conventional molar anchorage: An in vivo study. Contemp. Clin. Dent., 9(3), 337–342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_837_17.

Jasmine, M.I.F., Yezdani, A.A., Tajir, F., Venu, R.M. (2012). Analysis of stress in bone and microimplants during en-masse retraction of maxillary and mandibular anterior teeth with different insertion angulations: A 3-dimensional finite element analysis study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 141(1), 71–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.06.031.

Chen, Y., Kyung, H.M., Zhao, W.T., Yu, W.J. (2009). Critical factors for the success of orthodontic mini-implants: A systematic review. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 135(3), 284–291. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.017.

Park, H.-S., Hwangbo, E.-S., Kwon, T.-G. (2010). Proper mesiodistal angles for microimplant placement assessed with 3-dimensional computed tomography images. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 137(2), 200–206. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.028.

Reynders, R.M., Ladu, L., Ronchi, L., Di Girolamo, N., De Lange, J., Roberts, N., Plüddemann, A. (2016). Insertion torque recordings for the diagnosis of contact between orthodontic mini-implants and dental roots: A systematic review. Syst. Rev., 5, 50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0227-3.

Yu, W., Park, H.-S., Kyung, H.-M., Kwon, O.-W. (2012). Dynamic simulation of the self-tapping insertion process of orthodontic microimplants into cortical bone with a 3-dimensional finite element method. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 142(6), 834–841. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.08.016.

Araghbidikashani, M., Golshah, A., Nikkerdar, N., Rezaei, M. (2016). In-vitro impact of insertion angle on primary stability of miniscrews. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 150(3), 436–443. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.02.020.

Smith, A., Hosein, Y.K., Dunning, C.E., Tassi, A. (2015). Fracture resistance of commonly used self-drilling orthodontic mini-implants. Angle Orthod., 85(1), 26–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/112213-860.1.

Jensen, S., Jensen, E., Sampson, W., Dreyer, C. (2021). Torque requirements and the influence of pilot holes on orthodontic miniscrew microdamage. Appl. Sci., 11(8), 3564. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11083564.

Shank, S.B., Beck, F.M., D’Atri, A.M., Huja, S.S. (2012). Bone damage associated with orthodontic placement of miniscrew implants in an animal model. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 141(4), 412–418. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.10.021.

Chen, Y., Shin, H.-I., Kyung, H.-M. (2008). Biomechanical and histological comparison of self-drilling and self-tapping orthodontic microimplants in dogs. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 133(1), 44–50. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.023.

Çehreli, S., Özçirpici, A.A. (2012). Primary stability and histomorphometric bone-implant contact of self-drilling and self-tapping orthodontic microimplants. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop., 141(2), 187–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.07.020.