Search

Background The purpose of this study was to explore the use of miniplates as skeletal anchorages for orthodontic treatment and to investigate the stability of miniplates and the causes of failure. Methods Forty-four miniplates were applied in the maxilla or mandible as skeletal anchorages in orthodontic treatment. Two weeks later, a force of 100 to 200 g was applied by an elastometric chain or nickel-titanium coil spring to move the teeth. To compare nominal variables related to miniplate failure, the chi-square or Fisher's exact test was used. Results The average insertion time of a miniplate was approximately 25 to 30 minutes. One miniplate loosened before orthodontic force loading. The other miniplate was removed after orthodontic force loading. The overall success rate was 95.5 percent. The authors found no significant differences in the risk factors for failure of miniplates. Conclusions Miniplates are easy to insert for skeletal anchorage, simplify treatment mechanics, and shorten the orthodontic treatment period.

The aim of this study was to explore the use of mini-implants for skeletal anchorage, and to assess their stability and the causes of failure. Forty-five mini-implants were used in orthodontic treatment. The diameter of the implants was 2mm, and their lengths were 8, 10, 12 and 14mm. The drill procedure was directly through the cortical bone without any incision or flap operation. Two weeks later, a force of 100-200g was applied by an elastometric chain or NiTi coil spring. Risk factors for the failure of mini-implants were examined statistically using the Chi-square or Fisher exact test as applicable. The average placement time of a mini-implant was about 10-15min. Four mini-implants loosened after orthodontic force loading. The overall success rate was 91.1%. The location of the implant was the significant factor related to failure. In conclusion, the mini-implants are easy to insert for skeletal anchorage and could be successful in the control of tooth movement.

Purpose Various types of temporary implants have been introduced to serve as orthodontic anchorage. The hypothesis of this study is that microimplants of 1.2 mm diameter can be used as orthodontic anchors, and that their success is related to their length. The aim of this study is to determine the incidence of anchor retention after orthodontic force application for moving teeth, and to determine the relationship of microimplant length to retention rate. Methods Fifty-nine microimplants (diameter: 1.2 mm) were placed in 29 patients as orthodontic anchorages. After 2 weeks of microimplant placement, a force of 100 to 200 g was loaded with an elastometric chain or NiTi coil spring. Risk factors were characterized as to why a microimplant may fail, and Fisher’s exact test was used for statistical analysis. Results Nine microimplants were removed and the overall success rate was 84.7%. Exploring the causes for failure, we found significant differences between the length of microimplants and success rate; 6 mm was 72.2% and 8 mm was 90.2%. Conclusions The results suggest that microimplants are suited as an alternative orthodontic anchorage. We recommend that 8-mm microimplants are preferable to 6-mm.