Chen Yi-Jane, Chang Hao-Hueng, Huang Chi-Yin, Hung Hsin-Chia, Lai Eddie Hsiang-Hua, Yao Chung-Chen Jane
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, National Taiwan University, and Dental Department, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007 Dec;18(6):768-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01405.x. Epub 2007 Sep 14.
The aim of this retrospective study was to assess systematically the case distribution among three types of mini-implants and to evaluate the clinical factors that influence the failure rates of mini-implants used as an orthodontic anchorage.
Data for 359 mini-implants (miniplates, miniscrews, and microscrews) in 129 patients were collected. The factors related to mini-implant failure were evaluated using univariate analysis and multivariate stepwise logistic regression analysis.
Among these three different types of skeletal anchorage, there was a significant difference between the failure rates of these mini-implants, with the miniscrews and microscrews showing much higher failure rates. There were no significant differences in failure rates among the mini-implants for the following variables: gender, type of malocclusion, local or full-arch treatment, whether on the buccal or lingual side, length of the screw, loading pattern, or the duration of the healing phase. Greater risks for failure were found in younger patients, when an implant was placed for retraction/protraction, when it was placed on the mandibular arch, when it was placed anterior to the second premolars, or when using the miniscrew/microscrew systems. After adjusting for potential confounding effects, only three factors (type of mini-implant, placement on the mandibular arch, and age) were found to be statistically significant in predicting mini-implant failures (P<0.05) with an R2 value of 85.2%.
Mini-implants placed in younger patients or placed on the mandibular arch are at a greater risk of failing. The miniplate system has greater stability compared with miniscrews or microscrews. However, it requires flap surgery for insertion and removal, which usually causes swelling and discomfort. Therefore, selection of the proper type of skeletal anchorage should be based on the specific treatment needs of each individual patient.
本回顾性研究旨在系统评估三种微型种植体的病例分布情况,并评估影响用作正畸支抗的微型种植体失败率的临床因素。
收集了129例患者中359枚微型种植体(微型钛板、微型螺钉和微螺钉)的数据。使用单因素分析和多因素逐步逻辑回归分析评估与微型种植体失败相关的因素。
在这三种不同类型的骨支抗中,这些微型种植体的失败率存在显著差异,微型螺钉和微螺钉的失败率要高得多。在以下变量方面,微型种植体的失败率没有显著差异:性别、错牙合类型、局部或全牙弓治疗、位于颊侧还是舌侧、螺钉长度、加载方式或愈合期持续时间。在年轻患者中,当种植体用于内收/前牵时,当种植体放置在下颌牙弓时,当种植体放置在第二前磨牙前方时,或当使用微型螺钉/微螺钉系统时,失败风险更高。在调整潜在混杂效应后,发现只有三个因素(微型种植体类型、放置在下颌牙弓上和年龄)在预测微型种植体失败方面具有统计学意义(P<0.05),R2值为85.2%。
放置在年轻患者或下颌牙弓上的微型种植体失败风险更大。与微型螺钉或微螺钉相比,微型钛板系统具有更高的稳定性。然而,其插入和取出需要翻瓣手术,这通常会导致肿胀和不适。因此,应根据每个患者的具体治疗需求选择合适类型的骨支抗。