Acceptability · 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
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
Adverse events · 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Economic factors · 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