Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Evidence-Based Dentistry is please to announce that from January 2021 the journal will accept submissions of systematic reviews. For more information please visit our Information for Authors page.

Summary Review/Orthodontics

Mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage

Question: What is the effectiveness of temporary intraoral skeletal anchorage devices compared to conventional anchorage augmentation during space closure by retraction of anterior teeth?


Data sources

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.

Study selection

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.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    University of Bristol. Risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS). ROBIS tool and the ROBIS guidance document. Available at (accessed August 2017).

  3. 3

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Cowan K and Oliver S . The James Lind Alliance Guidebook, 2013. Version 5. Available at (accessed August 2017).

  7. 7

    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.

  8. 8

    University of York. PROSPERO: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Available at (accessed August 2017).

  9. 9

    OpenDOAR. The directory of Open Access Repositories (Open DOAR). Available at (accessed July 2017).

  10. 10

    Registry of Open Access Repositories (ROAR). Available at (accessed August 2017).

  11. 11

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Goodman S N, Fanelli D, Ioannidis J P . What does research reproducibility mean? Sci Transl Med 2016; 8: 341ps12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    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.

  15. 15

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Mertz D, Loeb M . Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    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 (accessed August 2017).

  19. 19

    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 (accessed August 2017).

  20. 20

    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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Dunn A G . Set up a public registry of competing interests. Nature. 2016; 533: 9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Ioannidis J P . The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q 2016; 94: 485–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Additional information

Address for correspondence: Jan Łyczek, Department of Orthodontics and Dento- facial Orthopedics, Faculty of Dentistry, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw 52-020, Poland. e-mail:

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Reynders, R., Ladu, L. Mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage. Evid Based Dent 18, 82–85 (2017).

Download citation


Quick links