The Angle orthodontist · 2021
Survival estimates and risk factors for failure of palatal and buccal mini-implants.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Arqub Sarah Abu, Gandhi Vaibhav, Mehta Shivam, Palo Ledjo, Upadhyay Madhur, Yadav Sumit
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to compare the success and survival rates of palatal and buccal mini-implants for different locations and treatment requirements. The secondary objective was to evaluate risk factors influencing the survival of mini-implants.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort, records of 127 orthodontic patients with 257 mini-implants were included after imposing inclusion/exclusion criteria. Along with the implant failure data, factors such as age, sex, transverse location, anteroposterior location, and purpose of mini-implants were recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to draw the curves and a Nathan Mantel-David Cox test to compare variables.
RESULTS: The failure rate of palatal mini-implants was 8.5%, whereas the failure rate for buccal shelf mini-implants was 68.7% (P < .0001). A significant difference was that the survival rates of palatal mini-implants were dependent on the purpose of the mini-implants and, for the buccal mini-implants, they were dependent on the skeletal malocclusion and location type of mini-implants (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The overall survival rate of palatal mini-implants was high, at 91.5%. Of the buccal mini-implants, inter-radicular mini-implants had the highest survival rate for 12 (75.5%) and 24 (71.9%) months, while buccal shelf mini-implants had the lowest success and survival rates for 12 (31.3%) and 24 (20.8%) months. Class III malocclusion had the lowest survival rate for the buccal mini-implants (65.3% and 54.2%) for 12 and 24 months.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort, records of 127 orthodontic patients with 257 mini-implants were included after imposing inclusion/exclusion criteria. Along with the implant failure data, factors such as age, sex, transverse location, anteroposterior location, and purpose of mini-implants were recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to draw the curves and a Nathan Mantel-David Cox test to compare variables.
RESULTS: The failure rate of palatal mini-implants was 8.5%, whereas the failure rate for buccal shelf mini-implants was 68.7% (P < .0001). A significant difference was that the survival rates of palatal mini-implants were dependent on the purpose of the mini-implants and, for the buccal mini-implants, they were dependent on the skeletal malocclusion and location type of mini-implants (P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The overall survival rate of palatal mini-implants was high, at 91.5%. Of the buccal mini-implants, inter-radicular mini-implants had the highest survival rate for 12 (75.5%) and 24 (71.9%) months, while buccal shelf mini-implants had the lowest success and survival rates for 12 (31.3%) and 24 (20.8%) months. Class III malocclusion had the lowest survival rate for the buccal mini-implants (65.3% and 54.2%) for 12 and 24 months.