Abstract
Data sources
Medline, Embase, LILACS, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Web of Science, African Journals Online, Digital Dissertations.
Study selection
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), prospective controlled clinical trials(CCTs) and prospective cohort studies were included. Studies on implants with a diameter greater than 2 mm were excluded.
Data extraction and synthesis
Data were extracted independently by two authors. Bias in RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, with non-randomised studies being assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Failures of mini-screw implants were expressed as event rates with 95% confidence intervals. Risk factors were assessed using random effects model and sub-group and meta-regression analyses were also conducted.
Results
Fifty-two studies; five RCTs, eight CCTs, twenty-seven prospective cohort studies and twelve studies with unclear designs that were assessed to be prospective cohort studies were included. A funnel plot suggested there may be publication bias. Analysis of 4987 miniscrew implants used in 2281 patients indicated an overall failure rate of 13.5% (95% confidence interval, 11.5%-15.8%). Failures were not associated with patient sex or age and mini-screw implant insertion side, whereas they were significantly associated with jaw of insertion. Some trends were identified through exploratory analysis but no definite conclusions could be drawn.
Conclusions
Orthodontic miniscrew implants have a modest small mean failure rate, indicating their usefulness in clinical practice. Although many factors seem to affect their failure rates, the majority of them still need additional evidence to support any possible associations.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Skeggs RM, Benson PE, Dyer F . Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007 Jul 18;(3):CD005098.
Papadopoulos MA, Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP . Clinical effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2011; 90: 969–976.
Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10.
O'Connor D, Green S, Higgins JPT (editors). Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Intervention. Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org (Accessed August 13th 2013).
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Kunz R, et al. GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 395–400.
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.
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: 1351–1359.
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: 577–595. e7.
Reeves BC, Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Wells GA . Chapter 13: Including non-randomized studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org (Accessed August 13th 2013).
Meursinge Reynders RA, 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. e5.
Valentine JC, Thompson SG . Issues relating to confounding and meta-analysis when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Syn Meth 2013; 4: 26–35.
Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 40–406.
Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH . Chapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (editors), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org (Accessed August 13th 2013).
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 158–172.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009; 6: e1000100. Epub 2009 Jul 21.
Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org (Accessed March 13th 2013).
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG ; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097.
Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N . A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 158–163.
Kokich VG . Happy 20th anniversary! Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2013; 144: 1
Turpin DL . Updated CONSORT and PRISMA documents now available. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010; 137: 721–722.
Fanelli D . Redefine misconduct as distorted reporting. Nature 2013; 494: 149.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: Moschos A. Papadopoulos, Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, GR-54124 Thessaloniki, Greece. E-mail: mikepap@dent.auth
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: 577–595. e7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.05.016.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reynders, R. Low quality evidence on the stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Evid Based Dent 14, 78–80 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400950
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400950
This article is cited by
-
Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of orthodontic mini implants in clinical practice: a systematic review
Systematic Reviews (2016)
-
Insertion torque recordings for the diagnosis of contact between orthodontic mini-implants and dental roots: protocol for a systematic review
Systematic Reviews (2015)
-
Skeletal anchorage for everybody? A questionnaire study on frequency of use and clinical indications in daily practice
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie (2015)
-
Moderate quality evidence that surgical anchorage more effective than conventional anchorage during orthodontic treatment
Evidence-Based Dentistry (2014)
