What do systematic reviews say?

8 questions · 8 findings · 1 reviews · Oral Health · related questions CL0289

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 1 · 12.5%GRADE not reported 5 · 62.5%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 12.5%Moderate 1 · 12.5%High 0 · 0%

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
End of anchorage reinforcement / space closure
MD -1.68 [-2.27, -1.09]
7 studies · 308 participants
Moderate

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Success or failure of the anchorage device · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

1 finding from 1 review

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
Reported in 5 studies but not pooled due to variability in the definition of success and incomplete reporting. Success rates: mini-implants 71.43% (10/14) (Basha 2010); Orthosystem mid-palatal implant 91.30% (21/23) vs…
5 studies
GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported on residual overjet at the end of treatment
0 studies
No studies found

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient discomfort · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

1 finding from 1 review

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
Reported narratively in 2 studies (Chesterfield 2007, 47 patients; Feldmann 2007, 113 patients) on a VAS 0-100; discomfort most severe the evening after surgery (Nobel-Biocare onplant median 33, IQR 0-96) and after…
2 studies · 160 participants
GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of overall treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of overall treatment compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
SMD -0.25 [-0.62, 0.12]
3 studies · 111 participants
Low

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of space closure · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
SMD -0.09 [-0.54, 0.35]
3 studies · 80 participants
GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Number of visits · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) led to higher number of visits compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
MD 7.01 [3.47, 10.55]
1 study · 47 participants
GRADE not reported

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient perception: pain · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

1 finding from 1 review

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
Reported narratively in 1 study (Feldmann 2007) on a VAS 0-100; the first evening after the intervention pain was significantly higher for surgical group A (P=0.002) and conventional group C (P=0.007) than surgical…
1 study · 113 participants
GRADE not reported