Clinical Outcome of Mini‐Screws Used as Orthodontic Anchorage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implants and orthodontics are an important combination to obtain intraoral anchorage and eliminate the disadvantages linked with extraoral anchorage such as compliance problems, aesthetical, and social factors. The mini-screw is a simple, relatively low-cost method to provide intraoral anchorage. PURPOSES: The aims of this study were to evaluate clinical success and longevity of mini-screws during orthodontic treatment and to assess the patient's opinion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty mini-screws were inserted in the mandible and maxilla of 21 patients with a flapless technique under local anesthesia. The patients were recalled after 2 weeks and from then on every other 2 months, and periodontal parameters and stability of the screws were evaluated at regular intervals. Patients received a questionnaire to assess their opinion regarding the treatment. RESULTS: Thirty-three mini-screws (64%) remained stable sufficiently long to obtain the effect during the orthodontic movement. The survival was comparable in mandible or maxilla, and not related to the orthodontic forces applied or time of activation of the load. The results do suggest that a waiting period of 1 week before loading improves success, and mini-screws inserted into the anterior region score better also compared to the posterior region. Initial periodontal parameters, which are very important in prognosis of orthodontic treatment, are not influencing the success rate in the examined group. Patients complained in 40-50% of the cases of pain during or after surgery, but this did not negatively affect the final general satisfaction with the treatment. CONCLUSION: The mini-screw implant is an easy and an inexpensive method for temporary anchorage of orthodontic appliances. The functioning time is short, however, and retreatment may often be required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".