Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Pauls A, Drescher D
Policlinic of Orthodontics, University Hospital Düsseldorf, Germany.
J Orofac Orthop. 2012 Dec;73(6):467-76. doi: 10.1007/s00056-012-0107-y. Epub 2012 Oct 28.
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.
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.
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).
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.
本研究的目的是确定植入腭部的微型种植体是否可用于在同一患者中连续或同时实现多个治疗目标。
回顾性评估43例患者的治疗结果。每位患者应用两个种植体支持的机械系统，19例患者（A组）为连续应用，24例患者（B组）为同时应用。通过计算治疗目标达成成功率、微型种植体存活率和支抗质量对两组进行分析和比较。还分析了治疗持续时间的组间差异。
除A组1例患者外，所有患者均实现了治疗目标（A组成功率94.7%，B组成功率100%）。每组均有1例患者出现支抗丧失（A组成功率94.7%，B组成功率95.3%）。A组有3枚种植体出现微型种植体松动，进而种植体失败（存活率91.8%），B组有2枚种植体出现这种情况（存活率95.6%）。虽然这些组间差异均无统计学意义，但两组的治疗持续时间差异很大：B组（10.0±4.2个月）明显短于A组（14.4±3.5个月；p=0.001）。
植入腭部用于骨骼支抗的微型种植体可用于在同一患者中实现多个治疗目标。这种多用途应用可以连续和同时成功。后一种选择可以显著加快治疗速度，因此，在可行的情况下，应根据特定患者共存治疗指征的性质优先选择。
