↓ Skip to main content

Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Progress in Orthodontics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
185 Mendeley
Title
Role of anatomical sites and correlated risk factors on the survival of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
Progress in Orthodontics, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s40510-018-0225-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hisham Mohammed, Khaled Wafaie, Mumen Z. Rizk, Mohammed Almuzian, Rami Sosly, David R. Bearn

Abstract

The aim of this review was to systematically evaluate the failure rates of miniscrews related to their specific insertion site and explore the insertion site dependent risk factors contributing to their failure. An electronic search was conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Knowledge, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed up to October 2017. A comprehensive manual search was also performed. Randomised clinical trials and prospective non-randomised studies, reporting a minimum of 20 inserted miniscrews in a specific insertion site and reporting the miniscrews' failure rate in that insertion site, were included. Study selection, data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two reviewers. Studies were sub-grouped according to the insertion site, and the failure rates for every individual insertion site were analysed using a random-effects model with corresponding 95% confidence interval. Sensitivity analyses were performed in order to test the robustness of the reported results. Overall, 61 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis. Palatal sites had failure rates of 1.3% (95% CI 0.3-6), 4.8% (95% CI 1.6-13.4) and 5.5% (95% CI 2.8-10.7) for the midpalatal, paramedian and parapalatal insertion sites, respectively. The failure rates for the maxillary buccal sites were 9.2% (95% CI 7.4-11.4), 9.7% (95% CI 5.1-17.6) and 16.4% (95% CI 4.9-42.5) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between maxillary first molars and second premolars and between maxillary canines and lateral incisors, and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress respectively. The failure rates for the mandibular buccal insertion sites were 13.5% (95% CI 7.3-23.6) and 9.9% (95% CI 4.9-19.1) for the interradicular miniscrews inserted between mandibular first molars and second premolars and between mandibular canines and first premolars, respectively. The risk of failure increased when the miniscrews contacted the roots, with a risk ratio of 8.7 (95% CI 5.1-14.7). Orthodontic miniscrew implants provide acceptable success rates that vary among the explored insertion sites. Very low to low quality of evidence suggests that miniscrews inserted in midpalatal locations have a failure rate of 1.3% and those inserted in the zygomatic buttress have a failure rate of 16.4%. Moderate quality of evidence indicates that root contact significantly contributes to the failure of interradicular miniscrews placed between the first molars and second premolars. Results should be interpreted with caution due to methodological drawbacks in some of the included studies.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 185 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 185 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 14%
Student > Postgraduate 19 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 6%
Other 11 6%
Student > Bachelor 10 5%
Other 26 14%
Unknown 81 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 87 47%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 4%
Engineering 2 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 1%
Social Sciences 2 1%
Other 2 1%
Unknown 83 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2019.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Progress in Orthodontics
#98
of 255 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#194,329
of 350,625 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Progress in Orthodontics
#3
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 255 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 350,625 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 5 of them.