Effectiveness of Micro-implant in Vertical Control During Orthodontic Extraction Treatment in Class II Adults and Adolescents After Pubertal Growth Peak: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Overview

Journal Clin Oral Investig

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2023 Feb 4

PMID 36738320

Authors

Jing Peng

Yahui Lei

Yucheng Liu

Bin Zhang

Jianming Chen

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of micro-implant (MI) and conventional anchorage (CA) in vertical control during orthodontic extraction treatment of class II adults and adolescents after pubertal growth peak.

Materials And Methods: Literature search was conducted through Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP, China Biology Medicine (CBM), and other sources, from inception to December 2021. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were conducted. A meta-analysis concerning change of mandibular plane, vertical change of upper and lower molar, change of occlusal plane, SNB, chin position, and profile was carried out.

Results: A total of 10,669 records were identified in the database search, and 19 studies (10 RCTs and 9 CCTs) were included in the final analysis. Compared with CA, MI significantly decreased mandibular plane angle and intruded upper molars. No significant difference was found in vertical change of lower molars, occlusal plane, SNB, chin position, and profile.

Conclusion: MI seems to be more effective than CA in vertical control during orthodontic extraction treatment of class II adults and adolescents after pubertal growth peak.

Clinical Relevance: MI should be given priority when considering the vertical control of class II patients, which is beneficial to the counterclockwise rotation of mandible or at least prevention of deterioration of the profile.

Citing Articles

Expert consensus on orthodontic treatment of protrusive facial deformities.

Pan J, Lu Y, Liu A, Wang X, Wang Y, Gong S Int J Oral Sci. 2025; 17(1):5.

PMID: 39890790 PMC: 11785726. DOI: 10.1038/s41368-024-00338-4.

Nonsurgical synergistic full-arch vertical intrusion treatment of bimaxillary protruded hyperdivergent skeletal Class II malocclusion using aligners.

Pei T, Bai X Angle Orthod. 2024; 94(4):462-472.

PMID: 39229955 PMC: 11210509. DOI: 10.2319/112923-790.1.

Quantitative evaluation of vertical control in orthodontic camouflage treatment for skeletal class II with hyperdivergent facial type.

Guo Y, Cui S, Liu Y, Fu Y, Zhang J, Zhou Y Head Face Med. 2024; 20(1):31.

PMID: 38745246 PMC: 11092056. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-024-00432-2.

References

Liang W, Tang Y, Huang W, Han B, Lin J . [Efficacy of vertical control by using mini-implant anchorage in maxillary posterior buccal area for Angle class Ⅱ extraction patients]. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2022; 54(2):340-345. PMC: 9069030. View

Yao C, Lai E, Chang J, Chen I, Chen Y . Comparison of treatment outcomes between skeletal anchorage and extraoral anchorage in adults with maxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(5):615-24. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.12.022. View

Chopra S, Mukherjee M, Mitra R, Kochar G, Kadu A . Comparative evaluation of anchorage reinforcement between orthodontic implants and conventional anchorage in orthodontic management of bimaxillary dentoalveolar protrusion. Med J Armed Forces India. 2017; 73(2):159-166. PMC: 5592270. DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.01.003. View

Antoszewska-Smith J, Sarul M, Lyczek J, Konopka T, Kawala B . Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during en-masse retraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 151(3):440-455. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.029. View

Liu Y, Yang Z, Zhou J, Xiong P, Wang Q, Yang Y . Comparison of Anchorage Efficiency of Orthodontic Mini-implant and Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Patients Requiring Maximum Orthodontic Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2020; 20(2):101401. DOI: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2020.101401. View

Wang K, Fan H, Yang H, Li J, Xie W . Efficacy and safety of micro-implant anchorage in Angle class II malocclusion orthodontic treatment: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis. Medicine (Baltimore). 2020; 99(50):e23221. PMC: 7738121. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000023221. View

Deguchi T, Kurosaka H, Oikawa H, Kuroda S, Takahashi I, Yamashiro T . Comparison of orthodontic treatment outcomes in adults with skeletal open bite between conventional edgewise treatment and implant-anchored orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011; 139(4 Suppl):S60-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.029. View

Liu Y, Ding W, Liu J, Li Q . Comparison of the differences in cephalometric parameters after active orthodontic treatment applying mini-screw implants or transpalatal arches in adult patients with bialveolar dental protrusion. J Oral Rehabil. 2009; 36(9):687-95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01976.x. View

Al-Sibaie S, Hajeer M . Assessment of changes following en-masse retraction with mini-implants anchorage compared to two-step retraction with conventional anchorage in patients with class II division 1 malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 36(3):275-83. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjt046. View

10.

Kuroda S, Yamada K, Deguchi T, Kyung H, Takano-Yamamoto T . Class II malocclusion treated with miniscrew anchorage: comparison with traditional orthodontic mechanics outcomes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009; 135(3):302-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.038. View

11.

Sterne J, Savovic J, Page M, Elbers R, Blencowe N, Boutron I . RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019; 366:l4898. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898. View

12.

Sterne J, Hernan M, Reeves B, Savovic J, Berkman N, Viswanathan M . ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355:i4919. PMC: 5062054. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919. View

13.

Langan D, Higgins J, Jackson D, Bowden J, Veroniki A, Kontopantelis E . A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2018; 10(1):83-98. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1316. View

14.

Guyatt G, Oxman A, Vist G, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336(7650):924-6. PMC: 2335261. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD. View

15.

Chen M, Li Z, Liu X, Cai B, Wang D, Feng Z . Differences of treatment outcomes between self-ligating brackets with microimplant and headgear anchorages in adults with bimaxillary protrusion. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 147(4):465-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.11.029. View

16.

Chae J . A new protocol of Tweed-Merrifield directional force technology with microimplant anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(1):100-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.10.020. View