Skip to main content
. 2014 Aug 19;2014(8):CD005098. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005098.pub3

Turkoz 2011.

Methods

  • Trial design: single‐centre RCT (parallel group)

  • Location: Turkey

  • Recruitment period: not stated

  • Funding source: not stated

  • Source of participants: setting not stated

  • Study duration: not stated

  • Time points at which follow‐up are reported: before loading, after 1 month of loading the mini‐implants, and overall
Participants

  • 69 participants in total, 24 males and 32 females

  • 22 in mini‐implant group (pilot hole diameter 1.1 mm): mean age of 15.2 years, 10 males and 12 females

  • 20 in mini‐implant group (pilot hole diameter 0.9 mm): mean age 16.1 years, 7 males and 13 female

  • 20 in mini‐implant group (self drilling): mean age 15.4 years, 7 males and 13 female

  • Inclusion criteria:

  1. Angle Class II malocclusion

  2. no history of trauma

  3. no significant medical history

  4. no congenital anomalies

  5. no previous orthodontic treatment
Interventions

  • Comparison 1: Mini‐screw implants (Absoanchor; Dentos, Daegu, Korea) (Pilot hole diameter 1.1 mm)

  1. Diameter 1.4 mm and body length of 7 mm

  2. Had a pilot hole drilled with a drill of diameter 1.1 mm

  3. Loaded after 2 weeks

  • Comparison 2: Mini‐screw implants (Absoanchor; Dentos, Daegu, Korea) (Pilot hole diameter 0.9 mm)

  1. Diameter 1.4 mm and body length of 7 mm

  2. Had a pilot hole drilled with a drill of diameter 0.9 mm

  3. Loaded after 2 weeks

  • Comparison 3: Mini‐screw implants (Absoanchor; Dentos, Daegu, Korea) (Self drilling)

  1. Diameter 1.4 mm and body length of 7 mm

  2. Self drilling (drill‐free) insertion was performed using a manual screwdriver

  3. Loaded after 2 weeks
Outcomes

  • Success/failure of the anchorage device:


‐ failure was recorded when there was significant mobility that could not sustain the orthodontic force
‐ this was assessed before loading, 1 month after loading and overall
Notes Success and failure reported by implant and not by participant
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias) Unclear risk Quote: "Sixty‐two adolescent patients were randomly assigned to three groups"
Comment: insufficient information about the sequence generation process to permit judgement
Allocation concealment (selection bias) Unclear risk Not addressed
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) 
 All outcomes Unclear risk Not addressed
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) 
 mesial movement of upper first maxillary molar Low risk All randomised patients were analysed
Selective reporting (reporting bias) High risk

  • Selective reporting of outcomes: anchorage loss was not an objective of this study; however it would have been an expected outcome in this type of study

  • Selective reporting of data: no suggestion of selective reporting
Other bias Low risk Study appears to be free of other sources of bias