Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2024; 56(03): 169-173
DOI: 10.1055/a-2331-3205
Übersichtsartikel

Skelettale Verankerung in der Kieferorthopädie – Evidenz, Nutzen und Limitationen

Skeletal Anchorage in Orthodontics – Evidence, Benefits and Limitations
Kathrin Becker
1   Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie und Orthodontie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
Lisa Josefine Langer
1   Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie und Orthodontie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
,
Katharina Mücke
1   Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie und Orthodontie, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

In der Kieferorthopädie ist eine präzise und akkurate Diagnostik notwendig, um die Ursachen von dentalen und skelettalen Malokklusionen zu analysieren und patientenindividuelle Therapiekonzepte zu entwickeln. Auf dieser Basis kann entschieden werden, ob eine Dysgnathie ursächlich therapiert, oder ob eine dentoalveoläre Kompensation angestrebt werden soll. Für den Erfolg der Therapie ist dann die Wahl einer geeigneten Verankerung maßgeblich.

Die skelettale Verankerung stellt in vielen Situationen eine nebenwirkungsarme und effektive Alternative zu konventionellen Verankerungsmöglichkeiten dar. In einigen Fällen erlaubt sie zudem Maßnahmen, die anders gegenwärtig nicht umgesetzt werden können. Ein relevanter Unterschied kieferorthopädischer Implantate im Vergleich zu dentalen Implantaten ist dabei, dass sie nur temporär im Knochen verbleiben, sodass sich die mikro- und makrostrukturellen Anforderungsprofile unterscheiden.

Ziel des Artikels ist es, die Geschichte der skelettalen Verankerung in der Kieferorthopädie zusammenzufassen, Charakteristika kieferorthopädischer Mini-Implantate aufzuzeigen, die wichtigsten Insertionsgebiete zu beleuchten und typische Indikationen zu erläutern.

Abstract

In orthodontics, precise and accurate diagnostics are necessary to analyze the causes of dental and skeletal malocclusions and to develop patient-specific treatment concepts. On this basis, a decision can be made as to whether dysgnathia should be treated causally or whether dentoalveolar compensation should be attempted. The choice of a suitable anchorage is then decisive for the success of the treatment.

In many situations, skeletal anchorage is an effective alternative to conventional anchorage options with few side effects. In some cases, it also allows measures that cannot currently be implemented in any other way. One relevant difference between orthodontic implants and dental implants is that they only remain in the bone temporarily, which means that the micro- and macro- structural requirements differ.

The aim of this article is to summarize the history of skeletal anchorage in orthodontics, highlight the characteristics of orthodontic mini-implants, shed light on the most important areas of insertion and explain typical indications.

Schlüsselwörter

Skelettale Malokklusionen - skelettale Verankerung - kieferorthopädische Implantate - Limitationen

Keywords

skeletal malocclusions - skeletal anchorage - orthodontic implants - limitations


Publication History

Article published online:
27 September 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Gainsforth BL, Higley BA. “A study of orthodontic anchorage possibilities in basal bone.”. American journal of orthodontics 1945; 406-417
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 2 Brånemark PI, Hansson BO, Adell R. et al. “Osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Experience from a 10-year period.”. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Suppl 1977; 16: 1-132
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 3 Parlar A, Uensal B, Cetiner D. et al. “ORALS - Influence of various surface treatments on reosseointegration around contaminated implants.”. Journal of Clinical Periodontology 2006; 33: 23-188
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 4 Janssens F, Swennen G, Dujardin T. et al. “Use of an onplant as orthodontic anchorage.”. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002; 122: 566-570
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 5 Wehrbein H, Glatzmaier J, Mundwiller U. et al. “The Orthosystem-a new implant system for orthodontic anchorage in the palate.”. J Orofac Orthop 1996; 57: 142-153
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 6 Kanomi R. “Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage.”. J Clin Orthod 1997; 31: 763-767
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 7 Melsen B. “Mini-Implants: Where Are We?”. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics. 2005
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 8 Becker K, Unland J, Wilmes B. et al. Is there an ideal insertion angle and position for orthodontic mini-implants in the anterior palate? A CBCT study in humans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2019; 156: 345-354 PMID: 31474264
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 9 Wilmes B, Ludwig B, Vasudavan S. et al. The T-Zone: Median vs. Paramedian Insertion of Palatal Mini-Implants. J Clin Orthod 2016; 50: 543-551 PMID: 27809213
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 10 Mohammed H, Wafaie K, Rizk MZ. et al. “Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis.”. Prog Orthod 2018; 19: 36
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 11 Arqub SA, Gandhi V, Mehta S. et al. Survival estimates and risk factors for failure of palatal and buccal mini-implants. Angle Orthod 2021; 91: 756-763 PMID: 34003884; PMCID: PMC8549566
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 12 Palone M, Darsiè A, Maino GB. et al. “Analysis of biological and structural factors implicated in the clinical success of orthodontic miniscrews at posterior maxillary interradicular sites.”. Clin Oral Investig 2022; 26: 3523-3532
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 13 Küffer M, Drescher D, Becker K. “Application of the Digital Workflow in Orofacial Orthopedics and Orthodontics: Printed Appliances with Skeletal Anchorage.”. Applied Sciences 2022; 12: 3820
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 14 Becker K, Pliska A, Busch C. et al. “Efficacy of orthodontic mini implants for en masse retraction in the maxilla: a systematic review and meta-analysis.”. Int J Implant Dent 2018; 4: 35
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 15 Wilmes B, Olthoff G, Drescher D. “Comparison of skeletal and conventional anchorage methods in conjunction with pre-operative decompensation of a skeletal class III malocclusion.”. J Orofac Orthop 2009; 70: 297-305
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 16 Wang J, Yang Y, Wang Y. et al. “Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: Systematic review and network meta-analysis.”. Korean J Orthod 2022; 52: 313-323
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 17 Becker K, Wilmes B, Grandjean C. et al. “Skeletally anchored mesialization of molars using digitized casts and two surface-matching approaches : Analysis of treatment effects.”. J Orofac Orthop 2018; 79: 11-18
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 18 Choi SH, Shi KK, Cha JY. et al. “Nonsurgical miniscrew-assisted rapid maxillary expansion results in acceptable stability in young adults.”. Angle Orthod 2016; 86: 713-720
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 19 Erverdi N, Okar I, Kücükkeles N. et al. “A comparison of two different rapid palatal expansion techniques from the point of root resorption.”. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106: 47-51
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 20 Garib DG, Henriques JF, Janson G. et al. “Periodontal effects of rapid maxillary expansion with tooth-tissue-borne and tooth-borne expanders: a computed tomography evaluation.”. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006; 129: 749-758
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 21 Lagravère MO, Heo G, Major PW. et al. “Meta-analysis of immediate changes with rapid maxillary expansion treatment.”. J Am Dent Assoc 2006; 137: 44-53
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 22 Poggio PM, Incorvati C, Velo S. et al. ““Safe zones”: a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch.”. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 191-197
    PubMedSearch in Google Scholar
  • 23 Becker K, Schwarz F, Rauch NJ. et al. “Can implants move in bone? A longitudinal in vivo micro-CT analysis of implants under constant forces in rat vertebrae.”. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019; 30: 1179-1189
    CrossrefPubMedSearch in Google Scholar