Temporary Anchorage Devices usage stability in modern  orthodontics: systematic   review

Liudmyla Hryva

doi:10.32345/USMYJ.4(158).2025.192-204

Liudmyla Hryva Department of Orthodontics and Prosthetics Propaedeutics, Faculty of Dentistry, Bogomolets National Medical University, Kyiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0009-0001-2487-8657

DOI: https://doi.org/10.32345/USMYJ.4(158).2025.192-204

Keywords: Orthodontic Anchorage Procedures, Orthodontic Tooth Movement, Malocclusion, Orthodontic Appliances, Orthodontic Preventive, Orthodontic, Interseptive

Abstract

In orthodontic treatment, TADs have mostly been utilized for anchorage when patient compliance is lacking. Various failure rates have been reported in modern orthodontic literature. An accurate assessment of the TADs stability rate and potential risk factors for the mechanically-retained TADs was the aim of our research. Up to December 2017, MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were used for electronic database searches. Reference lists were examined and further searching for ongoing and unpublished data was done. Hand searches of pertinent journals and grey literature were also conducted. We gathered English-language published prospective cohort studies (PCSs) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that detailed the failure rate of miniscrews, which are less than 2 mm in diameter, when used as an orthodontic anchoring. In this study, data extraction, risk of bias evaluation, and blind and duplicate study selection were done. Using the random-effects model, failure rates and pertinent risk variables for miniscrews were determined, along with the accompanying 95 percent confidence intervals (CIs). The I² and Chi² tests were used to evaluate the heterogeneity among the studies. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane Risk of Bias were used to determine the risk of bias. The robustness of the meta-analysis results was tested by using subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This study comprised 30 prospective clinical trials as well as 16 randomized clinical trials. Because there was insufficient statistical data to calculate the impact sizes, five studies were excluded from the meta-analysis. In a random-effect model, 3250 miniscrews approximately amongst 41 trials were combined. Miniscrews showed an overall failure rate of 13.5% (95% CI 11.5%–15.9%). Analysis of division groups revealed that smoking and the kind of gingivae had statistically significant effects on the rate of miniscrew failure, while the diameter, length, and design of the miniscrews, patient age, and place of insertion had non-significant effects. Conclusion: TADs have an acceptably low failure rate. Because of the high degree of heterogeneity and imbalanced groups in the included research, care should be taken when interpreting the results. To validate the results of this review, significant sample sizes from high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed.

References

Papadopoulos, M.A. and Tarawneh, F. (2007) The use of miniscrew implants for temporary skeletal anchorage in orthodontics: a comprehensive review. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics, 103, e6–15.

Kyung, S.H., Hong, S.G. and Park, Y.C. (2003) Distalization of maxillary molars with a midpalatal miniscrew. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 37, 22–26.

Park, Y.C., Lee, S.Y., Kim, D.H. and Jee, S.H. (2003) Intrusion of posterior teeth using mini-screw implants. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 123, 690–694.

Schätzle, M., Männchen, R., Zwahlen, M. and Lang, N.P. (2009) Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 20, 1351–1359.

Dalessandri, D., Salgarello, S., Dalessandri, M., Lazzaroni, E., Piancino, M., Paganelli, C., Maiorana, C. and Santoro, F. (2014) Determinants for success rates of temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a metaanalysis (n > 50). European Journal of Orthodontics, 36, 303–313.

Rodriguez, J.C., Suarez, F., Chan, H.L., Padial-Molina, M. and Wang, H.L. (2014) Implants for orthodontic anchorage: success rates and reasons of failures. Implant Dentistry, 23, 155–161.

Papageorgiou, S.N., Zogakis, I.P. and Papadopoulos, M.A. (2012) Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 142, 577–595.e7.

Kanomi, R. (1997) Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 31, 763–767.

Wehrbein, H., Merz, B.R. and Diedrich, P. (1999) Palatal bone support for orthodontic implant anchorage–a clinical and radiological study. European Journal of Orthodontics, 21, 65–70.

Block, M.S. and Hoffman, D.R. (1995) A new device for absolute anchorage for orthodontics. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 107, 251–258.

Lai, E.H., Yao, C.C., Chang, J.Z., Chen, I. and Chen, Y.J. (2008) Threedimensional dental model analysis of treatment outcomes for protrusive maxillary dentition: comparison of headgear, miniscrew, and miniplate skeletal anchorage. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 134, 636–645.

De Clerck, H.J., Cornelis, M.A., Cevidanes, L.H., Heymann, G.C. and Tulloch, C.J. (2009) Orthopedic traction of the maxilla with miniplates: a new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 67, 2123–2129.

Kuroda, S., Sugawara, Y., Deguchi, T., Kyung, H.M. and TakanoYamamoto, T. (2007) Clinical use of miniscrew implants as orthodontic anchorage: success rates and postoperative discomfort. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 131, 9–15.

Cope, J.B. (2005) Temporary anchorage devices in orthodontics: a paradigm shift. Paper presented at Seminars in Orthodontics.

Cousley, R.R. and Sandler, P.J. (2015) Advances in orthodontic anchorage with the use of mini-implant techniques. British Dental Journal, 218, E4.

Prabhu, J. and Cousley, R.R. (2006) Current products and practice: bone anchorage devices in orthodontics. Journal of Orthodontics, 33, 288–307.

Chen, Y.J., Chang, H.H., Huang, C.Y., Hung, H.C., Lai, E.H. and Yao, C.C. (2007) A retrospective analysis of the failure rate of three different orthodontic skeletal anchorage systems. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 18, 768–775.

Kravitz, N.D. and Kusnoto, B. (2007) Risks and complications of orthodontic miniscrews. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 131, S43–S51.

Miyawaki, S., Koyama, I., Inoue, M., Mishima, K., Sugahara, T. and Takano-Yamamoto, T. (2003) Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 124, 373–378.

Melsen, B. (2005) Mini-implants: Where are we? Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 39, 539–47; quiz 531.

Park, H.S., Lee, S.K. and Kwon, O.W. (2005) Group distal movement of teeth using microscrew implant anchorage. The Angle Orthodontist, 75, 602–609.

Park, H.S., Jeong, S.H. and Kwon, O.W. (2006) Factors affecting the clinical success of screw implants used as orthodontic anchorage. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 130, 18–25.

Chen, Y., Kyung, H.M., Zhao, W.T. and Yu, W.J. (2009) Critical factors for the success of orthodontic mini-implants: a systematic review. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 135, 284–291.

Motoyoshi, M., Hirabayashi, M., Uemura, M. and Shimizu, N. (2006) Recommended placement torque when tightening an orthodontic miniimplant. Clinical Oral Implants Research, 17, 109–114.

Estelita, S., Janson, G., Chiqueto, K. and Garib, D. (2012) Mini-implant insertion based on tooth crown references: a guide-free technique. International Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, 41, 128–135.

Wilmes, B., Su, Y.Y. and Drescher, D. (2008) Insertion angle impact on primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. The Angle Orthodontist, 78, 1065–1070.

Khan MI, Neela PK, Unnisa N, Jaiswal AK, Ahmed N, Purkayastha A. Dentoskeletal effects of Twin Block appliance in patients with Class II malocclusion. Med Pharm Rep. 2022 Apr;95(2):191-196. doi: 10.15386/mpr-1989. Epub 2022 Apr

De Ridder L, Aleksieva A, Willems G, Declerck D, Cadenas de Llano-Pérula M. Prevalence of Orthodontic Malocclusions in Healthy Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Jun 17;19(12):7446. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19127446.

Ghodasra R, Brizuela M. Orthodontics, Malocclusion. 2023 Apr 23. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2025 Jan–.

Higgins, J.P. and Green, S. (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Vol. 4. John Wiley & Sons.

Wells, G., Wells, G.A., Shea, B., O’Connell, D., Peterson, J., Welch, V. and Losos, M., et al. (2011) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa, Ontario: The Ottawa Health Research Institute.

Shinde S, Sethi S, Vasa D, Bhosale V, Patil K, Jadhav M. Comparative cephalometric evaluation of tongue position in subjects with skeletal class II division 1 and division 2 malocclusion. J Orthod Sci. 2023 Apr 28;12:28. doi: 10.4103/jos.jos_94_22.

Higgins, J.P., Thompson, S.G., Deeks, J.J. and Altman, D.G. (2003) Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ (Clinical Research ed.),327, 557–560.

Begg, C.B. and Mazumdar, M. (1994) Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics, ;1088–1101

Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., Minder, C. (1997). Bias in metaanalysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Bmj, 315, 629–634.

Narmada IB, Martalia C, Ramadhani SDN. Non-extraction Treatment of Class II Division 2 Malocclusion with Cover Bite: A Case Report. Acta Med Philipp. 2023 Apr 28;57(4):81-88. doi: 10.47895/amp.vi0.4309.

Falkensammer, F., Arnhart, C., Krall, C., Schaden, W., Freudenthaler, J. and Bantleon, H.P. (2014) Impact of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on orthodontic tooth movement-a randomized clinical trial. Clinical Oral Investigations, 18, 2187–2192.

Pandey R, Kamble R. Comparative evaluation and co-relation in variation of curve of Spee and curve of Wilson in Class II div. 1, Class II div. 2, and Class III as against Class I malocclusion in central India population-an in vitro study. F1000Res. 2024 Jul 10;12:493. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.133330.2.

Zhao Z, Zheng L, Huang X, Li C, Liu J, Hu Y. Effects of mouth breathing on facial skeletal development in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2021 Mar 10;21(1):108. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01458-7.

Pithon MM. Therapeutic approach in Class I malocclusion with impacted maxillary canines. Dental Press J Orthod. 2022 May 23;27(2):e22bbo2. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.27.2.e22bbo2.

Sun J, Zhu H, Lu C, Zhao J, Nie X, Yang Z, He D. Temporomandibular joint disc repositioning and occlusal splint for adolescents with skeletal class II malocclusion: a single-center, randomized, open-label trial. BMC Oral Health. 2023 Sep 27;23(1):694. doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03402-3.

Zhao H, Sun R, Cao S, Han J. Treatment of Class II Malocclusion With Orthodontic Microimplant Anchorage. Int Dent J. 2024 Jun;74(3):536-542. doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.11.008. Epub 2023 Dec 6.

Kabalan RM, Tayyar RK, Khattab TZ, Hajeer MY. Characteristics and Dynamics of Smile in Patients With Skeletal Class II Malocclusion Versus Class I Malocclusion Using Still Digital Video Captures: A Three-Group, Cross-Sectional, Comparative Study. Cureus. 2022 Oct 26;14(10):e30704. doi: 10.7759/cureus.30704.