Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of International Oral Health : JIOH logoLink to Journal of International Oral Health : JIOH
. 2015;7(Suppl 1):83–87.

A Mini-review on the Effect of Mini-implants on Contemporary Orthodontic Science

Saeid Nosouhian 1, Mansour Rismanchian 2, Roya Sabzian 3, Elham Shadmehr 4, Hamid Badrian 5, Amin Davoudi 3,✉
PMCID: PMC4516069  PMID: 26225113

Abstract

The purpose of this literature review was to screen the valuable published articles regarding to the impacts of mini-implants on orthodontic science, briefly. The searching category was performed on the Pubmed using MeSH words such as “dental (mini) implants, orthodontic anchorage procedures, and orthodontic appliances.” After preliminary sketch, they were grouped as follow: Those evaluating (a) common appliances for providing orthodontic anchorage, (b) biomechanical details of mini-implants and their insertion, (c) clinical application of mini-implants for orthognathic treatments, (d) limitations and possible complications. In conclusion, mini-implant evolved the orthodontic treatment plans and compromised the required orthognathic surgery. Malocclusion treatment and pure orthodontic or orthopedic movements in the three-dimensions have become recently possible by using mini-implant to provide skeletal anchorage.

Keywords: Dental implants, orthodontic anchorage procedures, orthodontic appliances

Introduction

Anchorage plays a significant role in the success of orthodontic treatment outcomes.1 Some efforts have been made to gain the optimum anchorage intra or extra orally such as using chin cap, headgear, and multiple brackets.2 Both anchorage devices and techniques are accompanied by some deficiencies. Extra oral anchorage requires remarkable patient’s cooperation which is not mostly achieved.3 Intra-oral anchorage (specially tooth supported) cannot provide optimum anchorage, also needs sufficient dentition.3,4 Absolute anchorage can only gain by ankylosed teeth or conventional implants. However, their anchoring ability depends on their bone structure.5 Temporary anchorage devices (TADs) can provide skeletal anchorage.6 TADs are used to gain maximum anchorage without full-time patient’s cooperation,7 but multidirectional and heavy forces weaken them gradually.8 They can be easily inserted and removed9 thought their insertion needs specific caution because root damages are possible to happen.10 Currently, mini-implants are increasingly used in comparison to other TADs due to their low cost and less invasion.6,11 A survey in USA among orthodontic practitioners and residency programs revealed that majority of them used TADs and mini-implants in their practice.12 Interestingly, mini-implants helped many patients with complex problems, to avoid orthognathic surgery by using fixed appliance therapy and mini-implants.13

Implant Criteria

Osseointegration of titanium to the bone, with no adverse tissue response, was observed in 1969. Since then, dental implants have been used to reconstruct human jaws.14

Bing resistance to stress, strain, and corrosion are essential for an implant fixture.15 Because titanium alloy is non-allergic with no immunological reactions, it designated as an ideal material for mini-implants.16 One study observed the increased osteoblast proliferation on the surface of mini-implants after 72 h.17 Another nano observation on osseointegration of titanium implants revealed existence of crystalline hydroxyapatite, integration of bone, and TiO2, and the possibility of presence of CaTiO3.18 Nevertheless, the insertion depth affect the primary stability remarkably more than implant material.19

With respect to all types of implants, mini-plates, micro-implant (MI,) and micro-screws provide an absolute anchorage for tooth movement.11

In 1997, the first MI with 1.2 mm diameter and 6 mm length were introduced by orthodontics20 and they have been gained popularity over implants, on-plants, and mini-plates because of their versatility, minimally invasive surgery with no damage to the dental roots, ease of insertion and removal, ready to be loaded after initial wound healing, and their low costs.21,22 Retention of mini-implants depends on many different factors such as: Implant dimensions,23 implant surface characteristics,24 insertion angle,25 insertion torque,26 site of insertion,23 soft tissue characteristics,27 bone quality,28 risk of inflammation,25 and root proximity.22

Primary stability is another important factor, which is defined as implant stability immediately after insertion, whereas secondary stability is due to bone remodeling.22 Hnece, mini-implants do not need a waiting period because their primary stability is generally sufficient to sustain normal orthodontic loading.17

There are no specific maximum insertion torque levels to bring about higher success rates for orthodontic mini-implants.29 It has been reported that excessive insertion torque forces can cause necrosis of the surrounding bone.30,31 5-10 N cm insertion torque is adequate for mini-implants with a diameter of 1.6 mm to minimize the risk of failure.30

The optimal site for mini-implant placement is posterior region of both jaws specially between the second premolar and first molar, and between the first and second molars.32

Mini-implant’s Type and Shapes

Self-tapping and self-drilling are two common types of mini-implants that predrilling differ them from each other.33,34 The self-tapping system needs predrilling and it is indicated for a prolong treatment schedule. However, the predrilling might result in inevitable complications such as: Thermal damage, root damage, and drill fractures. In the other hand, placement of the self-drilling type is proceeded in lesser time, thermal damage, and risk of fractures.33 Furthermore, insertion of self-drilling mini-implants is executed with manual pressure without considerable irrigation.35 Self-drilling system is advantageous with better stability, especially in sites with low bone density like maxilla, and adolescent patients.36 In contrast, in high-density bone or thick cortical bone, the self-drilling system is less advantageous as gaining adequate primary stability needs excessive pressure in that sites so the risk of microfracture is higher.34

Mini-implants are mostly consists of three components: Threaded shaft, cervical area, and a head for loading orthodontic forces. The head design differs according to two different concepts.37 One type with screw head, which attaches to tension springs or round wires by means of hooks, spherical heads, eyelets, and bore holes. This mentioned type covers a wide range of indications32 except for anchoring rectangular wires.37 The second head design has a slot or a cross-slot. Clinically, the second design seems to be more universal in application and can be indicated for all types of skeletal anchorage, however, the limitation of using rectangular wires should be noticed.37

Clinical Application

Anchorage reinforcements

Anchorage is defined by the resistance against displacement of anatomical structures. Controlling the anchorage sometimes limits orthodontic treatment and conventional intraoral anchorage reinforcement might bring about values of anchorage loss.38 Mesial movements of maxillary first molar, for instance, is unwanted anchorage loss during retraction of anterior teeth. The emergence of mini-implants provided a possible and reliable “direct anchorage” in all three dimensions even for complicated orthodontic treatments.39 Direct anchorages can easily be enhanced by inserted mini-implants in the buccal site between the first molar and second premolar roots or palatal site.40

Intrusion

The intrusion of the tooth is administered for several purposes. Jain et al. compared mini-implant, J hook headgear and utility arch appliances for deep bite treatment. The highest intrusion amount of maxillary incisors was observed in mini-implant group which was described as true intrusion without any significant side effects.7 Nevertheless reversible, but not significant, changes of pulpal tissue was observed following intrusion by mini-implants.41 Another study confirmed the benefits of administering mini-implants for deep bite correction.42

Intrusion of the maxillary molar tooth is another indication of using mini-implants specially in patients with anterior open bite with excessive maxillary posterior dentoalveolar height. It has been stated that maxillary molars can be successfully intruded by using skeletal anchorage and controlling eruption or extrusion of the mandibular molars.43

Bodily movements

Distally movement of maxillary molar may often provide a treatment solution for the correction of a malocclusion. The anchorage loss is the main concern during bodily movements of molar teeth, however, mini-implants enhanced the anchorage stability. Hence, Class II patients or Class III individuals, who needs decomposition prior to orthognathic surgery, may get advantages of using mini-implants. The success of pendulum appliance seemed to be increased by adding mini-implants for distalization purposes.44 One study demonstrated hopeful result in treatment of Class II patients when mini-implants provided palatal anchorage for distalization of maxillary molars.45 In general, literature support the fact that mini-implants can reinforce the anchorage of different maxillary distalize appliances.44,46,47

The Class III malocclusion might go under camouflage orthodontic treatments by using mini-implants. Distalization of mandibular molars would be possible by the help of mini-implants.48 Based on treatment plans, the mini-implants might be placed in maxillary40 or mandibular arch48 for Class III treatments.

Pure retraction of anterior segments of both mandibular and maxillary arch can be facilitate by using mini-implants. Ruellas et al. tried different mechanisms (vertical hooks; elastic chain attached to mini-implants + 3 mm, or 6 mm stainless steel hooks) for retracting maxillary incisors. The results revealed that mini-implants were more efficient in retraction without extrusion.48 In another clinical study, patients with dentoalveolar protrusion were treated by headgear and a transpalatal arch; mini-plate; and mini-implant. The three dimensional analysis showed a higher amount of incisor retraction for skeletal anchorage devices groups.49 Other studies showed similar results, too.50

Extrusion

Teeth are subjected to extrusive forces due to different occasions. Mini-implants represented a remarkable achievement in the removal of complicated impacted teeth. Park et al. simplified removal of a complex impacted third mandibular tooth, due to proximity to inferior alveolar nerve, by using mini-implants for applying extrusive force prior to extraction.51

Severely impacted tooth might become functional by relying on a stable anchorage and inducing extrusive forces. Nienkemper et al. extruded maxillary incisors, which were deeply impacted in maxilla by means of mini-implant anchorages. Depending on the anchorage needs and the location of the teeth to be moved, various types of implant mechanics were used and hopeful results were achieved.52

Treatments of rare dentoskeletal disorders

Ectodermal dysplasia is a rare congenital X-linked disease which affects the several structures of ectodermal originated organs. Dental prosthesis is administered for these patients however, some modifications are needed due to lack of the retention and stability.53 Hence, mini-implants might be indicated to elevate the support or retention of the definitive prostheses. Some case reports manifested patient’s satisfaction and well adaptation of prostheses after mini-implant treatments.54-56

Maxillary hypoplasia is another disorder which is mainly caused by skeletal deficiency at height, width, and anteroposterior relationships and requires multiple corrections. These patients mostly complain about psychological problems, physical deformities, mastication and speech abnormalities, and nasal pharyngeal airway constriction. One of the proper treatments is to protract maxillary arch by helps of palatal anchored mini-implants.57,58

Furthermore, congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisor might be well replaced with titanium mini-implants. This treatment offers benefits of lower cost, simplified insertion, faster healing period, and less post-operative complications.59

Limitations and side effects

Inflammation, which mostly tends to occur in non-keratinized tissue, can decline the success rate of mini-implants. Immediate loaded mini-implants seemed to not remain stable under occlusal forces. Another complications are loosening of mini-implants, pain, and swelling around the placement site.60

Conclusion

Mini-implants have influenced orthodontic treatment plans by providing possible management of complicated discrepancies than those treatable by conventional biomechanics. By the help of mini-implants, force can be applied directly to the bone-borne anchor unit. Therefore, mini-Implants not only eliminated concerns about anchorage-demanding cases, but they also have enabled clinicians to overcome tooth movement in three dimensions. Furthermore, adjunctive orthodontic treatments in adults, and treatment for impacted teeth are the other indication of mini-implant treatment.

Footnotes

Conflicts of Interest: None

Source of Support: Nil

References

  • 1.Vilani GN, Ruellas AC, Mattos CT, Fernandes DJ, Elias CN. Influence of cortical thickness on the stability of mini-implants with microthreads. Braz Oral Res. 2015;29(1) doi: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0023. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Favero L, Brollo P, Bressan E. Orthodontic anchorage with specific fixtures: Related study analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122(1):84–94. doi: 10.1067/mod.2002.124870. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Lee J, Miyazawa K, Tabuchi M, Sato T, Kawaguchi M, Goto S. Effectiveness of en-masse retraction using midpalatal miniscrews and a modified transpalatal arch: Treatment duration and dentoskeletal changes. Korean J Orthod. 2014;44(2):88–95. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.2.88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Wu TY, Kuang SH, Wu CH. Factors associated with the stability of mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage: A study of 414 samples in Taiwan. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(8):1595–9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2009.04.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Melsen B, Garbo D. Treating the impossible case with the use of the Aarhus anchorage system. Orthodontics. 2004;1:13–20. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Ueno S, Motoyoshi M, Mayahara K, Saito Y, Akiyama Y, Son S, et al. Analysis of a force system for upper molar distalization using a trans-palatal arch and mini-implant: A finite element analysis study. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35(5):628–33. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjs052. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Jain RK, Kumar SP, Manjula WS. Comparison of intrusion effects on maxillary incisors among mini implant anchorage, j-hook headgear and utility arch. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014;8(7):ZC21–4. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/8339.4554. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Jee JH, Ahn HW, Seo KW, Kim SH, Kook YA, Chung KR, et al. En-masse retraction with a preformed nickel-titanium and stainless steel archwire assembly and temporary skeletal anchorage devices without posterior bonding. Korean J Orthod. 2014;44(5):236–45. doi: 10.4041/kjod.2014.44.5.236. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lima GM, Soares MS, Penha SS, Romano MM. Comparison of the fracture torque of different Brazilian mini-implants. Braz Oral Res. 2011;25(2):116–21. doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242011000200004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kravitz ND, Kusnoto B. Risks and complications of orthodontic miniscrews. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007;131(4 Suppl):S43–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.027. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Park HS, Jang BK, Kyung HM. Maxillary molar intrusion with micro-implant anchorage (MIA) Aust Orthod J. 2005;21(2):129–35. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Shirck JM, Firestone AR, Beck FM, Vig KW, Huja SS. Temporary anchorage device utilization: Comparison of usage in orthodontic programs and private practice. Orthodontics (Chic.) 2011;12(3):222–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sebastian B. Mini-implants: New possibilities in interdisciplinary treatment approaches. Case Rep Dent 2014. 2014:140760. doi: 10.1155/2014/140760. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kumar NA, Agrawal G, Agrawal A, Sreedevi B, Kakkad A. Journey from 2-D to 3-D: Implant imaging a review. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2014. 2014 Article ID 091114. doi: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.13. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Olmedo DG, Tasat DR, Duffó G, Guglielmotti MB, Cabrini RL. The issue of corrosion in dental implants: A review. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2009;22(1):3–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Boucher BJ, Mannan N, Cunningham J. Vitamin D status and bone mass in UK South Asian women. Bone. 2007;40(4):1182–3. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2006.12.051. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Kim JS, Kang SM, Seo KW, Nahm KY, Chung KR, Kim SH, et al. Nanoscale bonding between human bone and titanium surfaces: Osseohybridization. Biomed Res Int 2015. 2015:960410. doi: 10.1155/2015/960410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Pan CY, Chou ST, Tseng YC, Yang YH, Wu CY, Lan TH, et al. Influence of different implant materials on the primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2012;28(12):673–8. doi: 10.1016/j.kjms.2012.04.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kanomi R. Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. J Clin Orthod. 1997;31(11):763–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Adell R, Lekholm U, Rockler B, Brånemark PI. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int J Oral Surg. 1981;10(6):387–416. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9785(81)80077-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Chatzigianni A, Keilig L, Reimann S, Eliades T, Bourauel C. Effect of mini-implant length and diameter on primary stability under loading with two force levels. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33(4):381–7. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Tseng YC, Hsieh CH, Chen CH, Shen YS, Huang IY, Chen CM. The application of mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;35(8):704–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2006.02.018. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Kim SH, Lee SJ, Cho IS, Kim SK, Kim TW. Rotational resistance of surface-treated mini-implants. Angle Orthod. 2009;79(5):899–907. doi: 10.2319/090608-466.1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wilmes B, Ottenstreuer S, Su YY, Drescher D. Impact of implant design on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. J Orofac Orthop. 2008;69(1):42–50. doi: 10.1007/s00056-008-0727-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Meursinge Reynders RA, Ronchi L, Ladu L, van Etten-Jamaludin F, Bipat S. Insertion torque and success of orthodontic mini-implants: A systematic review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;142(5):596–614.e5. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.06.013. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Cheng SJ, Tseng IY, Lee JJ, Kok SH. A prospective study of the risk factors associated with failure of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2004;19(1):100–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Al-Juboori MJ, Filho LC. The influence of flap design and technique on dental implant success, prognosis and morbidity: Mini review. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015. 2015 Article ID 161214. doi: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.25. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Uysal T, Yagci A, Esel D, Ramoglu SI, Kilinc A. Investigation of bacteremia following insertion of orthodontic mini-implants. World J Orthod. 2010;11(4):357–61. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Motoyoshi M, Hirabayashi M, Uemura M, Shimizu N. Recommended placement torque when tightening an orthodontic mini-implant. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(1):109–14. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01211.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Lee NK, Baek SH. Effects of the diameter and shape of orthodontic mini-implants on microdamage to the cortical bone. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(1):8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.02.019. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Fayed MM, Pazera P, Katsaros C. Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography. Angle Orthod. 2010;80(5):939–51. doi: 10.2319/121009-709.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Heidemann W, Terheyden H, Gerlach KL. Analysis of the osseous/metal interface of drill free screws and self-tapping screws. J Craniomaxillofac Surg. 2001;29(2):69–74. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Sowden D, Schmitz JP. AO self-drilling and self-tapping screws in rat calvarial bone: An ultrastructural study of the implant interface. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2002;60(3):294–9. doi: 10.1053/joms.2002.30585. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Goelzer JG, Avelar RL, de Oliveira RB, Hubler R, Silveira RL, Machado RA. Self-drilling and self-tapping screws: An ultrastructural study. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(2):513–5. doi: 10.1097/SCS.0b013e3181d023bd. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Kim JW, Ahn SJ, Chang YI. Histomorphometric and mechanical analyses of the drill-free screw as orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(2):190–4. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.01.030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Kalra S, Tripathi T, Rai P, Kanase A. Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: A CBCT study. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:61. doi: 10.1186/s40510-014-0061-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Costa A, Raffainl M, Melsen B. Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: A preliminary report. Int J Adult Orthodon Orthognath Surg. 1998;13(3):201–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Cousley RR, Sandler PJ. Advances in orthodontic anchorage with the use of mini-implant techniques. Br Dent J. 2015;218(3):E4. doi: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.He S, Gao J, Wamalwa P, Wang Y, Zou S, Chen S. Camouflage treatment of skeletal Class III malocclusion with multi loop edgewise arch wire and modified Class III elastics by maxillary mini-implant anchorage. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(4):630–40. doi: 10.2319/091312-730.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Sabuncuoglu FA, Ersahan S. Changes in maxillary incisor dental pulp blood flow during intrusion by mini-implants. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(7):489–96. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2013.867362. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Senisik NE, Türkkahraman H. Treatment effects of intrusion arches and mini-implant systems in deepbite patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012;141(6):723–33. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2011.12.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hart TR, Cousley RR, Fishman LS, Tallents RH. Dentoskeletal changes following mini-implant molar intrusion in anterior open bite patients. Angle Orthod. 2014 doi: 10.2319/090514-625.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Wilmes B, Katyal V, Drescher D. Mini-implant-borne Pendulum B appliance for maxillary molar distalisation: Design and clinical procedure. Aust Orthod J. 2014;30(2):230–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gurgel Jde A, Pinzan-Vercelino CR, Bramante FS, Rivera AP. Distalization of maxillary molars using a lever arm and mini-implant. Orthodontics (Chic.) 2013;14(1):e140–9. doi: 10.11607/ortho.604. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tozlu M, Nalbantgil D, Ozdemir F. Effects of a newly designed apparatus on orthodontic skeletal anchorage. Eur J Dent. 2013;7(Suppl 1):S83–8. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.119082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Reddy V, Parmar R, Jamadar IA, Reddy R, Reddy D. A simple mini-screw assembly for simultaneous molar uprighting and distalization – a case of adjunctive adult orthodontics. Int J Orthod Milwaukee. 2013;24(1):25–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Farret MM, Benitez Farret MM. Skeletal class III malocclusion treated using a non-surgical approach supplemented with mini-implants: A case report. J Orthod. 2013;40(3):256–63. doi: 10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000046. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Ruellas AC, Pithon MM, dos Santos RL. Maxillary incisor retraction: Evaluation of different mechanisms. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013;18(2):101–7. doi: 10.1590/s2176-94512013000200021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Upadhyay M, Yadav S, Patil S. Mini-implant anchorage for en-masse retraction of maxillary anterior teeth: A clinical cephalometric study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134(6):803–10. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.10.025. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Sharma M, Sharma V, Khanna B. Mini-screw implant or transpalatal arch-mediated anchorage reinforcement during canine retraction: A randomized clinical trial. J Orthod. 2012;39(2):102–10. doi: 10.1179/14653121226878. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Park W, Park JS, Kim YM, Yu HS, Kim KD. Orthodontic extrusion of the lower third molar with an orthodontic mini implant. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2010;110(4):e1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.04.031. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Nienkemper M, Wilmes B, Lübberink G, Ludwig B, Drescher D. Extrusion of impacted teeth using mini-implant mechanics. J Clin Orthod. 2012;46(3):150–5. quiz 183. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mello BZ, Silva TC, Rios D, Machado MA, Valarelli FP, Oliveira TM. Mini-implants: Alternative for oral rehabilitation of a child with ectodermal dysplasia. Braz Dent J. 2015;26(1):75–8. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440201300111. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Sfeir E, Nassif N, Moukarzel C. Use of mini dental implants in ectodermal dysplasia children: Follow-up of three cases. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2014;15(2 Suppl):207–12. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Koyuncuoglu CZ, Metin S, Saylan I, Calisir K, Tuncer O, Kantarci A. Full-mouth rehabilitation of a patient with ectodermal dysplasia with dental implants. J Oral Implantol. 2014;40(6):714–21. doi: 10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-12-00072. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Kircelli BH, Pektas ZO, Uçkan S. Orthopedic protraction with skeletal anchorage in a patient with maxillary hypoplasia and hypodontia. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(1):156–63. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0156:OPWSAI]2.0.CO;2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Sar C, Sahinoglu Z, Özçirpici AA, Uçkan S. Dentofacial effects of skeletal anchored treatment modalities for the correction of maxillary retrognathia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;145(1):41–54. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Collins R. Restoration of congenitally missing maxillary lateral incisors using mini implants. Tex Dent J. 2013;130(7):610–6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Garfinkle JS, Cunningham LL, Jr, Beeman CS, Kluemper GT, Hicks EP, Kim MO. Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant anchorage in premolar extraction therapy in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(5):642–53. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Kim SH, Kang SM, Choi YS, Kook YA, Chung KR, Huang JC. Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of mini-implants after placement: Is root proximity a major risk factor for failure. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;138(3):264–76. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.07.026. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of International Oral Health : JIOH are provided here courtesy of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry

RESOURCES