Comparative Study of Mini-implants versus Standard Implants in Orthodontic Anchorage for Space Closure.

Comparative study mini-implants orthodontic anchoring space closure standard implants

Journal

Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences
ISSN: 0976-4879
Titre abrégé: J Pharm Bioallied Sci
Pays: India
ID NLM: 101537209

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jul 2024
Historique:
received: 27 03 2024
revised: 02 04 2024
accepted: 06 04 2024
medline: 30 9 2024
pubmed: 30 9 2024
entrez: 30 9 2024
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

In order to obtain satisfactory treatment outcomes, orthodontic space closure frequently requires trustworthy anchoring devices. Because they are easier to install and smaller than regular implants, mini-implants have become a viable option. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of regular implants versus mini-implants as orthodontic anchoring devices for closing gaps in a tertiary care context. A total of 100 patients who needed space closure were split into two groups at random and given regular implants (group B, n = 50) or mini-implants (group A, n = 50). The rate of space closure, anchoring loss, and patient pain were measured using visual analog scales as the primary end measures. Resonance frequency analysis was used to assess implant stability. Based on implant survival and the lack of peri-implant problems, success rates were calculated. Mini-implants showed much lower rates of patient pain ( In conclusion, mini-implants have benefits in anchorage preservation, patient comfort, and implant stability over regular implants when used as orthodontic anchoring devices for space closure. They also offer equivalent effectiveness. These results provide credence to the use of mini-implants as practical substitutes in orthodontic practice.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
In order to obtain satisfactory treatment outcomes, orthodontic space closure frequently requires trustworthy anchoring devices. Because they are easier to install and smaller than regular implants, mini-implants have become a viable option. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of regular implants versus mini-implants as orthodontic anchoring devices for closing gaps in a tertiary care context.
Methods UNASSIGNED
A total of 100 patients who needed space closure were split into two groups at random and given regular implants (group B, n = 50) or mini-implants (group A, n = 50). The rate of space closure, anchoring loss, and patient pain were measured using visual analog scales as the primary end measures. Resonance frequency analysis was used to assess implant stability. Based on implant survival and the lack of peri-implant problems, success rates were calculated.
Findings UNASSIGNED
Mini-implants showed much lower rates of patient pain (
Conclusion UNASSIGNED
In conclusion, mini-implants have benefits in anchorage preservation, patient comfort, and implant stability over regular implants when used as orthodontic anchoring devices for space closure. They also offer equivalent effectiveness. These results provide credence to the use of mini-implants as practical substitutes in orthodontic practice.

Identifiants

pubmed: 39346410
doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_310_24
pii: JPBS-16-2458
pmc: PMC11426773
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

S2458-S2460

Informations de copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

There are no conflicts of interest.

Auteurs

Sanjay Kumar Sahoo (SK)

Department of Periodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.

Manjunath Chekka (M)

Professor and HOD, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Tirumala Dental College, Bardipur, Nizamabad, Telengana, India.

Riddhi Chawla (R)

School of Dentistry, Central Asian University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.

Mohammed Nehal Naimatullah (M)

Asian Institute of Advanced Dentistry, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad, Telengana, India.

K Kumar Misra (K)

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Campus 5, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.

Pradeep Kandikatla (P)

Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India.

M C Prashant (MC)

Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, RKDF Dental College and Research Centre, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India.

Classifications MeSH