Patients' Perceptions and Success Rate of Temporary Anchorage Devices After the Immediate and Delayed Loading of Orthodontic Mini-Implants-Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview

Journal J Pharm Bioallied Sci

Specialty Pharmacology

Date 2025 Mar 10

PMID 40061782

Authors

Subhrajeet Narayan Sahoo

Snigdha Pattanaik

Smruti Bhusan Nanda

Noorjahan Mohammad

Azuvi Khan

Saibalini Pani

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The search for an ideal anchorage during orthodontic treatment resulted in the invention of Orthodontic Mini Implants (OMIs) that do not require patient's cooperation. In spite of their common use in orthodontics, there is a lack of studies regarding patients' perceptions of OMIs after their immediate and delayed loading.

Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the pain and discomfort experienced by patients following the placement of orthodontic mini-implants and immediate loading with delayed loading, and to evaluate their success rate to formulate a definite clinical protocol for loading of the orthodontic mini-implants.

Material And Methods: Totally, 32 adult Orthodontic patients who required the extraction of the maxillary first premolars were recruited for the study. The use of OMIs as anchorage were randomized to immediate and delayed loading groups. A visual analogue scale questionnaire was used to seek patients' perception about use of OMIs at different times. Success rate was also assessed using mobility and signs of inflammation around the OMIs.

Results: In general, pain, swelling, bleeding, and discomfort were reported by patients more with the immediate loading group than the delayed loading group. Also, patients experienced difficulty during speech and brushing in the immediate loading group.

Conclusions: From this study, it is evident that the delayed loading of the OMIs created less pain and discomfort to patients. Furthermore, the success rate of OMIs was approximately 100% in both groups.

References

Park H, Kwon T . Sliding mechanics with microscrew implant anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2004; 74(5):703-10. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2004)074<0703:SMWMIA>2.0.CO;2. View

Garfinkle J, Cunningham Jr L, Beeman C, Kluemper G, Hicks E, Kim M . Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant anchorage in premolar extraction therapy in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133(5):642-53. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.053. View

Miyawaki S, Koyama I, Inoue M, Mishima K, Sugahara T, Takano-Yamamoto T . Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124(4):373-8. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00565-1. View

Costa A, Raffainl M, Melsen B . Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: a preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1998; 13(3):201-9. View

Moon C, Lee D, Lee H, Im J, Baek S . Factors associated with the success rate of orthodontic miniscrews placed in the upper and lower posterior buccal region. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(1):101-6. DOI: 10.2319/121706-515.1. View

Campbell W, Lewis S . Visual analogue measurement of pain. Ulster Med J. 1990; 59(2):149-54. PMC: 2448309. View

Manni A, Cozzani M, Tamborrino F, De Rinaldis S, Menini A . Factors influencing the stability of miniscrews. A retrospective study on 300 miniscrews. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 33(4):388-95. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjq090. View

Kanomi R . Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1998; 31(11):763-7. View

Park H, Jeong S, Kwon O . Factors affecting the clinical success of screw implants used as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(1):18-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.11.032. View

10.

Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Nagaraj K, Patil S . Treatment effects of mini-implants for en-masse retraction of anterior teeth in bialveolar dental protrusion patients: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 134(1):18-29.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.025. View

11.

Bae S, Park H, Kyung H, Kwon O, Sung J . Clinical application of micro-implant anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 2002; 36(5):298-302. View

12.

Huertas D, Ghafari J . New posteroanterior cephalometric norms: a comparison with craniofacial measures of children treated with palatal expansion. Angle Orthod. 2001; 71(4):285-92. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2001)071<0285:NPCNAC>2.0.CO;2. View

13.

Kim S, Choi Y, Hwang E, Chung K, Kook Y, Nelson G . Surgical positioning of orthodontic mini-implants with guides fabricated on models replicated with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(4 Suppl):S82-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.027. View

14.

Kuroda S, Sugawara Y, Deguchi T, Kyung H, Takano-Yamamoto T . Clinical use of miniscrew implants as orthodontic anchorage: success rates and postoperative discomfort. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(1):9-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.02.032. View

15.

Cheng S, Tseng I, Lee J, Kok S . A prospective study of the risk factors associated with failure of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004; 19(1):100-6. View

16.

Berens A, Wiechmann D, Dempf R . Mini- and micro-screws for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontic therapy. J Orofac Orthop. 2006; 67(6):450-8. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-006-0601-1. View

17.

Kim J, Ahn S, Chang Y . Histomorphometric and mechanical analyses of the drill-free screw as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 128(2):190-4. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.01.030. View

18.

Sung S, Jang G, Chun Y, Moon Y . Effective en-masse retraction design with orthodontic mini-implant anchorage: a finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(5):648-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.06.036. View

19.

Trisi P, Rebaudi A . Peri-implant bone reaction to immediate, early, and delayed orthodontic loading in humans. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005; 25(4):317-29. View