What do systematic reviews say?

Non-surgical interventions vs Surgical interventions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of peri‐implantitis 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Non-surgical versus surgical interventions: no trials.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Reported narratively in 1 study (Feldmann 2007): limitations in daily life and jaw function were low to moderate throughout the trial with no differences between anchorage groups; impact on mood and appearance peaked…
  1 study · 113 participants
  GRADE not reported

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  This outcome was unreported in all included studies
  0 studies
  No studies found

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

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).

• 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.)

• 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.)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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.)

• 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.)

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).

• 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.)

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.

• 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.)

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.

• 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.)

• 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

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on economic evaluation
  0 studies
  No studies found