ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Mini-Implant Rejection Rate in Teenage Patients Depending on Insertion Site: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mechanical and Biological Complications Two Years After Full-Arch Implant-Supported Prosthetic Rehabilitation: A Retrospective Clinical Study.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Usage and Preferences of Orthodontic Mini-Implants Among Romanian Practitioners: A Survey Study.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Review
- What is the impact of patient attributes, implant characteristics, surgical techniques, and placement location on the success of orthodontic mini-implants in young adults? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Review
- New Approaches and Technologies in Orthodontics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Antibacterial activity of 1 % Roselle flower nano-emulsion extract (Hibiscus sabdariffa) against peri-implantitis-related bacteria on orthodontic mini-implants: An in vitro study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mini-implants have undeniable advantages in Orthodontics. However, the use of mini-implants shows some limitations and disadvantages related to patient age, the quality of the bone tissue, the characteristics of the oral mucosa, implant site, the state of health of the organism and the quality of oral hygiene. The aim of this paper was to analyze the rejection rate of mini-implants in teenage patients, depending on their insertion site, and examine their stability up to three months after insertion. This retrospective study was conducted on dental charts belonging to patients aged between 12 and 17 years, from Oradea, Romania. The mini-implants were placed for various therapeutic reasons and were inserted in the following sites: buccal maxillary area, the infrazygomatic region, palatal area, buccal mandibular area and lingual area; they had a diameter of 1.6 mm (inter-radicular spaces) and of 2 mm (nonbearing tooth areas), and a length of 6-8 mm (mandible) or 8-10 mm (maxilla). The rejection rate was checked in the first month, second month, third month and after the third month from insertion. A total of 432 patients were included in the study, and they had a total of 573 mini-implants. Most implants were placed in the buccal region of the maxilla (27.7%), and most patients had one mini-implant placed (65.7%). The highest rejection rate was obtained in the first month (15.2%). The rejection rate between genders was similar. The mini-implants from the buccal mandibular region had a significantly higher rate of rejection in the first month (M1) in comparison to the mini-implants from the palatal region (24.4% vs. 8.3%). The mini-implants from the lingual region of the mandible had a significantly higher rate of rejection in the second month (M2) in comparison to the mini-implants from the infrazygomatic or the palatal region (10.5% vs. 0%/0%). Mini-implants are very useful for carrying out various orthodontic treatments, but their stability should be enhanced.
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.