{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02127659574468085, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013726835964310226, 'mean_word_length': 5.451327433628318, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Implant vs screw loading protocols in orthodontics.

OBJECTIVE
This systematic review presents the loading protocols applied when using implants and/or screws in orthodontic treatments.


MATERIALS AND METHODS
Clinical trials which assessed the use of implants and/or screws for orthodontic anchorage and studies involving treatment on syndromic patients, surgery, other simultaneous treatments, or appliances (ie mini-plates) were considered. Electronic databases (Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Lilacs, Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and All Evidence Based Medicine Reviews) were searched with the help of a senior Health Sciences librarian. Abstracts which appeared to fulfill the selection criteria were selected by consensus. The original articles were then retrieved and evaluated with a methodological checklist. References were also hand searched for possible missing articles.


RESULTS
Eleven articles fulfilled the selection criteria established. Five studies involved the use of implants while six involved the use of screws for orthodontic purposes. An individual methodological analysis for each article was made.


CONCLUSIONS
Loading protocols for implants involve a minimum waiting period of 2 months before applying orthodontic forces while loading protocols for screws involve immediate loading or a waiting period of 2 weeks to apply forces. Success rates for implants were on average higher than for screws.