{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03269961977186312, 'fraction_numerical': 0.02053231939163498, 'mean_word_length': 5.120930232558139, '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}}
Implants for Orthodontic Anchorage: Success Rates and Reasons of Failures

Introduction:The aims of this study were to analyze the success rate of mini-implants and miniscrews and to report the reasons behind them. Materials and Methods:An electronic literature search from PubMed databases and a hand search in implant- and orthodontic-related journals were performed until December 31, 2011. Human clinical studies in English that reported temporary anchorage devices used for orthodontic purpose with at least 6 months follow-up were included. In addition, the minimal number of implants had to be at least 10. Implants placed in maxilla, mandible, and hard palate were included. Results:The initial search resulted in 847 articles, of which 46 were further evaluated. Finally, 29 studies were qualified and classified into 2 groups: implants placed in maxilla and mandible (group 1) and implants placed in hard palate (group 2). A meta-analysis performed for groups 1 and 2 showed 87.8% and 93.8% survival rate, respectively. In addition, the most common cause for implants failure was surgery-related factors. Conclusion:Mini-implant survival rate is location dependent, with those placed in the palate showing higher success rates. In addition, failures most commonly occur because of surgery-related factors.