M Nienkemper1, B Wilmes, A Pauls, D Drescher. 1. Policlinic of Orthodontics, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany. Manuel.Nienkemper@uni-duesseldorf.de
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The goal of the study was to determine whether mini-implants inserted in the palate can be used to achieve more than one treatment goal consecutively or simultaneously in the same patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treatment results of 43 patients were retrospectively assessed. Two implant-supported mechanical systems per patient were applied either consecutively in 19 patients (group A) or simultaneously in 24 patients (group B). Both groups were analyzed and compared by calculating success rates for achievement of the treatment goals, survival of the mini-implants, and quality of anchorage. Durations of treatment were also analyzed for intergroup differences. RESULTS: Except for a single case in group A, the treatment goals were achieved in all patients (success rates 94.7% in group A versus 100% in group B). Anchorage loss was confined to one patient per group (success rates 94.7% in group A and 95.3% in group B). Mini-implant mobility, and hence implant failure, was observed in three implants in group A (survival rate 91.8%) and two implants in group B (survival rate 95.6%). While none of these intergroup differences were statistically significant, the treatment durations in both groups differed widely: those in group B were significantly shorter (10.0 ± 4.2 months) than those in group A (14.4 ± 3.5 months; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Mini-implants inserted in the palate for skeletal anchorage can be used to achieve more than one treatment goal in the same patient. Such multipurpose application can succeed consecutively and simultaneously. The latter option can significantly expedite treatments and should, therefore, be preferred when feasible, depending on the nature of coexisting therapeutic indications in a given patient.
OBJECTIVES: The goal of the study was to determine whether mini-implants inserted in the palate can be used to achieve more than one treatment goal consecutively or simultaneously in the same patient. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The treatment results of 43 patients were retrospectively assessed. Two implant-supported mechanical systems per patient were applied either consecutively in 19 patients (group A) or simultaneously in 24 patients (group B). Both groups were analyzed and compared by calculating success rates for achievement of the treatment goals, survival of the mini-implants, and quality of anchorage. Durations of treatment were also analyzed for intergroup differences. RESULTS: Except for a single case in group A, the treatment goals were achieved in all patients (success rates 94.7% in group A versus 100% in group B). Anchorage loss was confined to one patient per group (success rates 94.7% in group A and 95.3% in group B). Mini-implant mobility, and hence implant failure, was observed in three implants in group A (survival rate 91.8%) and two implants in group B (survival rate 95.6%). While none of these intergroup differences were statistically significant, the treatment durations in both groups differed widely: those in group B were significantly shorter (10.0 ± 4.2 months) than those in group A (14.4 ± 3.5 months; p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Mini-implants inserted in the palate for skeletal anchorage can be used to achieve more than one treatment goal in the same patient. Such multipurpose application can succeed consecutively and simultaneously. The latter option can significantly expedite treatments and should, therefore, be preferred when feasible, depending on the nature of coexisting therapeutic indications in a given patient.
Authors: Bruno Di Leonardo; Björn Ludwig; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Luca Contardo; Rossano Mura; Jan Hourfar Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2018-02-20 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: Jan Hourfar; Dirk Bister; Georgios Kanavakis; Jörg Alexander Lisson; Björn Ludwig Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2017-06-14 Impact factor: 2.151