ArticleThe Angle orthodontist2021
Survival estimates and risk factors for failure of palatal and buccal mini-implants.
Article in The Angle orthodontist, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dentoalveolar outcomes and the long-term stability of tooth-tissue-borne versus bone-tissue-borne rapid maxillary expansion in growing patients: A 5.8-year follow-up.Korean journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- Survival Rates of Reinserted Orthodontic Microimplants: An Exploratory Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Assessing Best Locations for Mini-Implants in the Mandibular Symphysis Based on Different Mandibular Growth Patterns: A CBCT Study.Turkish journal of orthodontics · 2026Article
- The Effect of Biomechanical Loading Parameters on the Stress and Strain Behavior of Orthodontic Mini-Implants: A Finite Element Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Simulated risk of root and neurovascular bundle damage during miniscrew insertion in the anterior palate without radiological data.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Comparison of total treatment duration with hybrid pendulum and buccal interradicular miniscrew supported maxillary molar distalization mechanics: a retrospective study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Balancing the Load: How Optimal Forces Shape the Longevity and Stability of Orthodontic Mini-Implants.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Usage and Preferences of Orthodontic Mini-Implants Among Romanian Practitioners: A Survey Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of palatal anchorage device (PAD) for maxillary anterior retraction with clear aligners using finite element study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Variability associated with maxillary infrazygomatic crest and palatal bone width, height, and angulation in subjects with different vertical facial growth types: a retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study.The Angle orthodontist · 2024Article
- The Orthodontic Mini-Implants Failures Based on Patient Outcomes: Systematic Review.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Mini-Implant Insertion Using a Guide Manufactured with Computer-Aided Design and Computer-Aided Manufacturing in an Adolescent Patient Suffering from Tooth Eruption Disturbance.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Palatal Thickness for the Placement of MARPE Device among a Cohort of Iraqi-Kurdish Population: A Retrospective CBCT Study.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparative analysis of anchorage strength and histomorphometric changes after implantation of miniscrews in adults and adolescents: an experimental study in Beagles.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Ridge mini-implants, a versatile biomechanical anchorage device whose success is significantly enhanced by splinting: a clinical report.Progress in orthodontics · 2023Review
- Evaluation of Palatal Bone Thickness at the Implantation Areas of Two Popular Bone-Anchored Distalizers-A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Retrospective Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Accuracy of digital workflow for placing orthodontic miniscrews using generic and licensed open systems. A 3d imaging analysis of non-native .stl files for guided protocols.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Effect of Splinting on Orthodontic Mini-Implant Tipping and Bone Histomorphometric Parameters: An In Vivo Animal Model Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Accuracy of Microimplant Placement Using a 3D Guide Plate for Orthodontic Anchorage.Applied bionics and biomechanics · 2023Article
- Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe primary objective was to compare the success and survival rates of palatal and buccal mini-implants for different locations and treatment requirements. The secondary objective was to evaluate risk factors influencing the survival of mini-implants. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this retrospective cohort, records of 127 orthodontic patients with 257 mini-implants were included after imposing inclusion/exclusion criteria. Along with the implant failure data, factors such as age, sex, transverse location, anteroposterior location, and purpose of mini-implants were recorded. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to draw the curves and a Nathan Mantel-David Cox test to compare variables.
resultsThe failure rate of palatal mini-implants was 8.5%, whereas the failure rate for buccal shelf mini-implants was 68.7% (P < .0001). A significant difference was that the survival rates of palatal mini-implants were dependent on the purpose of the mini-implants and, for the buccal mini-implants, they were dependent on the skeletal malocclusion and location type of mini-implants (P < .05).
conclusionsThe overall survival rate of palatal mini-implants was high, at 91.5%. Of the buccal mini-implants, inter-radicular mini-implants had the highest survival rate for 12 (75.5%) and 24 (71.9%) months, while buccal shelf mini-implants had the lowest success and survival rates for 12 (31.3%) and 24 (20.8%) months. Class III malocclusion had the lowest survival rate for the buccal mini-implants (65.3% and 54.2%) for 12 and 24 months.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.