Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Jan;85(1):33-8.
doi: 10.2319/112113-857.1.

Effect of the length of orthodontic mini-screw implants on their long-term stability: a prospective study

Michał Sarul  1 , Liwia Minch, Hyo-Sang Park, Joanna Antoszewska-Smith
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of the length of orthodontic mini-screw implants on their long-term stability: a prospective study

Michał Sarul et al. Angle Orthod. 2015 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the influence of the length of temporary intraoral skeletal anchorage devices (TISAD/TAD) on their long-term stability in the mandible in a homogenous group of patients.

Materials and methods: A group of generally healthy patients of the same gender (female) and with a statistically insignificant age difference (20-29 years) highly homogenous with respect to known factors affecting the success rate of TISAD/TAD was evaluated. One type of TISAD/TAD was applied (6- or 8-mm long). Each patient received both 6- and 8-mm-long TISAD/TAD in randomly selected mandibular quadrants: left or right. The long-term success rate of TISAD/TAD was analyzed.

Results: The 8-mm orthodontic mini-screw implants were significantly more stable than the 6-mm ones in the analyzed group.

Conclusion: The length of the TISAD/TAD may be one of the factors that can affect the long-term success rate in the mandibles of 20- to 29-year-old women.

Keywords: Anchorage; Long-term stability; Mini-screw implants; TISAD/TAD.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1. The CONSORT flow diagram of the study.
Figure 1.
The CONSORT flow diagram of the study.
Figure 2. Apical radiograms showing the relationship of the adjacent roots and the temporary intraoral skeletal anchorage devices.
Figure 2.
Apical radiograms showing the relationship of the adjacent roots and the temporary intraoral skeletal anchorage devices.
Figure 3. The loaded temporary intraoral skeletal anchorage devices.
Figure 3.
The loaded temporary intraoral skeletal anchorage devices.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Geron S, Shpack N, Kandos S, Davidovitch M, Vardimon AD. Anchorage loss: a multifactorial response. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:730–737. - PubMed
    1. Shpack N, Davidovitch M, Sarne O, Panayi N, Vardimon AD. Duration and anchorage management of canine retraction with bodily versus tipping mechanics. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:95–100. - PubMed
    1. Isaacson RJ, Lindauer SJ, Davidovitch M. The ground rules for arch wire design. Semin Orthod. 1995;1:3–11. - PubMed
    1. Banaie F, Parikakis K, Moberg S, Hellsing E. The variable anchorage straight wire technique compared with the straight wire technique in deep overbite correction. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:180–185. - PubMed
    1. Prabhu J, Cousley RRJ. Current products and practice: bone anchorage devices in orthodontics. J Orthod. 2006;33:288–307. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

  NODES
twitter 2