Comparison of Anchorage Efficiency of Orthodontic Mini-implant and Conventional Anchorage Reinforcement in Patients Requiring Maximum Orthodontic Anchorage: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Abstract

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical effectiveness of mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage appliances used for orthodontic anchorage reinforcement in patients with class I or II malocclusion with bimaxillary protrusion. Materials and MethodsLiterature search was conducted through PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to July 2018. The following Medical Subject Heading terms were used for the search string: “skeletal anchorage”, “temporary anchorage devices”, “miniscrew implant”, “mini-implant”, “micro-implant”. Standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) of horizontal and vertical movements of teeth from baseline were used for comparison. ResultsA total of 12 studies were included in the final analysis. MI group significantly lowered mesial movement of molars compared to conventional anchorage group (SMD = −1.48, 95% CI = −2.25 to −0.72; P = .0002). There was significantly higher retraction of incisors in the MI group than in the conventional group (SMD = −0.47 mm, 95% CI = −0.87 to −0.07; P = .02). No significant difference was seen in vertical movement of molars (SMD = −0.21 mm, 95% CI = −0.87 to 0.45; P = .52) and incisors (SMD = −0.30, 95% CI = −1.18 to 0.58; P = .5). ConclusionMIs seem to be more effective than the conventional anchorage devices in terms of minimizing unintended mesial movement of molars with maximum retraction of anterior teeth.