Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the Web of Science databases. Hand searches of the journals European Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Orthodontics, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, Seminars in Orthodontics, American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics and Angle Orthodontist.
Two reviewers independently selected studies. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of orthodontic patients requiring extraction of the maxillary first premolars and closure of the spaces without anchorage loss were considered.
Data extraction and synthesis
Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were carried out independently by two reviewers. Meta-analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted.
Fourteen studies; seven RCTS and seven CCTs were included. In total 303 patients received TISADs with 313 control patients. Overall the quality of the studies was considered to be moderate. Overall the TISAD group had significantly less anchorage loss than the control group. On average, TISADs enabled 1.86mm more anchorage preservation than did conventional methods.
The results of the meta-analysis showed that TISADs are more effective than conventional methods of anchorage reinforcement. The average difference of 2mm seems not only statistically but also clinically significant. However, the results should be interpreted with caution because of the moderate quality of the included studies. More high-quality studies on this issue are necessary to enable drawing more reliable conclusions.
Subscribe to Journal
Get full journal access for 1 year
only $29.75 per issue
All prices are NET prices.
VAT will be added later in the checkout.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Rent or Buy article
Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.
All prices are NET prices.
Antoszewska-Smith J, Sarul M, Łyczek J, Konopka T, Kawala B . Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during en-masse retraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151: 440–455.
University of Bristol. Risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS). ROBIS tool and the ROBIS guidance document. Available at http://www.bristol.ac.uk/social-community-medicine/projects/robis/ (accessed August 2017).
Shea B J, Grimshaw J M, Wells G A et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7: 10.
Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1013–1020.
Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP et al. ROBIS group. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 69: 225–234.
Cowan K and Oliver S . The James Lind Alliance Guidebook, 2013. Version 5. Available at http://www.jlaguidebook.org/pdfguidebook/guidebook.pdf (accessed August 2017).
Jambi S, Walsh T, Sandler J, Benson P E, Skeggs R M, O'Brien K D . Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 8: CD005098. DOI:10.1002/14651858.
University of York. PROSPERO: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Available at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (accessed August 2017).
OpenDOAR. The directory of Open Access Repositories (Open DOAR). Available at http://www.opendoar.org/ (accessed July 2017).
Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR). Available at http://roar.eprints.org/ (accessed August 2017).
Kirkham J J, Dwan KM, Altman D G et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010; 340: c365.
Reynders R, Ronchi L, Bipat S . Mini-implants in orthodontics: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009; 135: 564.e1–e19.
Goodman S N, Fanelli D, Ioannidis J P . What does research reproducibility mean? Sci Transl Med 2016; 8: 341ps12.
Hartling L, Hamm M, Milne A et al. Validity and inter-rater reliability testing of quality assessment instruments. (Prepared by the University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10021-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC039-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2012.
Hartling L, Milne A, Hamm M P et al. Testing the Newcastle Ottawa Scale showed low reliability between individual reviewers. J Clin Epidemiol 2013; 66: 982–993.
Mertz D, Loeb M . Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 45.
Sterne J A, Hernán M A, Reeves B C et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016; 355: i4919.
Sterne J A C, Higgins J P T . Reeves B C on behalf of the development group for ACROBAT-NRSI. A Cochrane Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool: for Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ACROBAT-NRSI), Version 1.0.0, 24 September 2014. Available at http://www.riskofbias.info (accessed August 2017).
Schünemann H, Brozek J, Gyatt G, Oxman A . GRADE handbook. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. Updated October 2013. Available at http://gdt.guidelinedevelopment.org/app/handbook/handbook.html (accessed August 2017).
Victor D, Prabhakar R, Karthikeyan M K et al. Effectiveness of mini implants in three-dimensional control during retraction - a clinical study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8: 227–232.
Dunn A G . Set up a public registry of competing interests. Nature. 2016; 533: 9.
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M et al.; PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 349: g7647.
Ioannidis J P . The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q 2016; 94: 485–514.
Address for correspondence: Jan Łyczek, Department of Orthodontics and Dento- facial Orthopedics, Faculty of Dentistry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw 52-020, Poland. e-mail: email@example.com.
Antoszewska-Smith J, Sarul M, Łyczek J, Konopka T, Kawala B. Effectiveness of orthodontic miniscrew implants in anchorage reinforcement during en-masse retraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2017; 151: 440–455. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.08.029. Review. PubMedPMID: 28257728.
About this article
Cite this article
Reynders, R., Ladu, L. Mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage. Evid Based Dent 18, 82–85 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401257