Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

126 questions · 147 findings · 16 reviews · Orthodontics

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 14 · 9.5%GRADE not reported 76 · 51.7%Very low 34 · 23.1%Low 13 · 8.8%Moderate 10 · 6.8%High 0 · 0%

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

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Acceptability · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

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
Acceptability was not reported in any of the studies comparing two types of surgical anchorage
0 studies
No studies found

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

Pre-drilling mini-screw implant vs Self-drilling mini-screw implant

Patient perception: pain · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

1 finding from 1 review

Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
Self-reported pain on insertion (0-4 scale): pre-drilling mean 0.73 (SD 1.1; median 0.00, IQR 0-3) vs self-drilling mean 1.87 (SD 1.13; median 2.0, IQR 0-4); 1 study (Lehnen 2011), 30 participants
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

Adverse effects · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage

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
Adverse effects were not reported in any of the studies comparing two types of surgical anchorage
0 studies
No studies found

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

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

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