Volume 10, Issue 1 (3-2025)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025, 10(1): 15-24 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: None
Clinical trials code: none
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Tahmasbi S, Taghavi Larijani S A, Namdari M, Behnaz M, Ghaffari S. Frequency and Pattern of Skeletal Anchorage Usage by Iranian Orthodontists: A Cross-sectional Study. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025; 10 (1) :15-24
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-690-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-690-en.html
Soodeh Tahmasbi1 
, Seyyed Arian Taghavi Larijani2 , Mahshid Namdari3 , Mohammad Behnaz1 , Samin Ghaffari *4
, Seyyed Arian Taghavi Larijani2 , Mahshid Namdari3 , Mohammad Behnaz1 , Samin Ghaffari *4
1- Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,saminghaffari@gmail.com
2- School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3- Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Paramedical Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4- Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran ,
Abstract: (118 Views)
Background and Aim: Considering the importance of skeletal anchorage in orthodontic treatment, this study aimed to assess the frequency and pattern of skeletal anchorage usage by Iranian orthodontists.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 301 Iranian orthodontists filled out a questionnaire consisting of 10 questions, 5 about miniscrews and 5 about miniplate usage. It also asked for the demographic information of the participants. The relationship between the participants' demographic information and their responses to the questions was also analyzed. Statistical analysis was conducted by the Chi-square test, one-way ANOVA, t-test, and Mann-Whitney test (alpha=0.05).
Results: There were 46.7% males and 53.3% females with a mean age of 38.9 years and a mean work experience of 8.95 years. Of all, 89.7% of the participants used miniscrews and 16.3% of them used miniscrews and miniplates. Generally, participants not using skeletal anchorage were significantly older (P=0.002) and had a significantly longer work experience (P=0.000). Also, there was no significant association between gender and skeletal anchorage usage (P=0.204). From the perspective of the orthodontists, the main indication of anchorage devices was to provide optimal anchorage.
Conclusion: The results showed that a high percentage of Iranian orthodontists used different types of skeletal anchorage devices. They preferred to use miniscrews more frequently than miniplates, mostly due to difficulties associated with their surgical insertion. Also, it was observed that older orthodontists used skeletal anchorage less frequently than younger orthodontists.
Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 301 Iranian orthodontists filled out a questionnaire consisting of 10 questions, 5 about miniscrews and 5 about miniplate usage. It also asked for the demographic information of the participants. The relationship between the participants' demographic information and their responses to the questions was also analyzed. Statistical analysis was conducted by the Chi-square test, one-way ANOVA, t-test, and Mann-Whitney test (alpha=0.05).
Results: There were 46.7% males and 53.3% females with a mean age of 38.9 years and a mean work experience of 8.95 years. Of all, 89.7% of the participants used miniscrews and 16.3% of them used miniscrews and miniplates. Generally, participants not using skeletal anchorage were significantly older (P=0.002) and had a significantly longer work experience (P=0.000). Also, there was no significant association between gender and skeletal anchorage usage (P=0.204). From the perspective of the orthodontists, the main indication of anchorage devices was to provide optimal anchorage.
Conclusion: The results showed that a high percentage of Iranian orthodontists used different types of skeletal anchorage devices. They preferred to use miniscrews more frequently than miniplates, mostly due to difficulties associated with their surgical insertion. Also, it was observed that older orthodontists used skeletal anchorage less frequently than younger orthodontists.
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
orthodontic
References
1. Jones JP, Elnagar MH, Perez DE. Temporary Skeletal Anchorage Techniques. Oral Maxillofac Surg Clin North Am. 2020 Feb;32(1):27-37. [DOI:10.1016/j.coms.2019.08.003] [PMID]
2. Casaña-Ruiz MD, Bellot-Arcís C, Paredes-Gallardo V, García-Sanz V, Almerich-Silla JM, Montiel-Company JM. Risk factors for orthodontic mini-implants in skeletal anchorage biological stability: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 3;10(1):5848. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-020-62838-7] [PMID] []
3. Park KH, Choi JY, Kim KA, Kim SJ, Chung KR, Kim SH. Critical issues concerning biocreative strategy in contemporary temporary skeletal anchorage device orthodontics: A narrative review. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Mar;24 Suppl 1:39-47. [DOI:10.1111/ocr.12444] [PMID]
4. Lam R, Goonewardene MS, Allan BP, Sugawara J. Success rates of a skeletal anchorage system in orthodontics: A retrospective analysis. Angle Orthod. 2018 Jan;88(1):27-34. [DOI:10.2319/060617-375.1] [PMID] []
5. Kim KA, Yu JJ, Chen Y, Kim SJ, Kim SH, Nelson G. Surgery Versus Nonsurgery Option for Scissors Bite Treatment. J Craniofac Surg. 2015 Nov;26(8):e726-9. [DOI:10.1097/SCS.0000000000002227] [PMID]
6. Suh HY, Lee SJ, Park HS. Use of mini-implants to avoid maxillary surgery for Class III mandibular prognathic patient: a long-term post-retention case. Korean J Orthod. 2014 Nov;44(6):342-9. [DOI:10.4041/kjod.2014.44.6.342] [PMID] []
7. Jung SK, Kim TW. Treatment of unilateral posterior crossbite with facial asymmetry in a female patient with transverse discrepancy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Jul;148(1):154-64. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.09.023] [PMID]
8. Mizrahi E. The Use of Miniscrews in Orthodontics: a Review of Selected Clinical Applications. Prim Dent J. 2016 Nov 1;5(4):20-7. [DOI:10.1308/205016816820209569] [PMID]
9. Cadavid D, Duque L, Correa S, H Buschang P, Roldan S. Miniimplant stability in Orthodontics." Bone Biology and Biomechanics". CES Odontología. 2014;27(2):93-103.
10. Papageorgiou SN, Zogakis IP, Papadopoulos MA. Failure rates and associated risk factors of orthodontic miniscrew implants: a meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Nov;142(5):577-595.e7. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.05.016] [PMID]
11. Petrey JS, Saunders MM, Kluemper GT, Cunningham LL, Beeman CS. Temporary anchorage device insertion variables: effects on retention. Angle Orthod. 2010 Jul;80(4):446-53. [DOI:10.2319/070309-376.1] [PMID] []
12. Zago H, Navarro RL, Laranjeira V, Fernandes TM, Conti AC, Oltramari PV. 3-D Evaluation of temporary skeletal anchorage sites in the maxilla. J Clin Exp Dent. 2021 Nov 1;13(11): e1131-9. [DOI:10.4317/jced.57574] [PMID] []
13. Bock NC, Ruf S. Skeletal anchorage for everybody? a questionnaire study on frequency of use and clinical indications in daily practice. J Orofac Orthop. 2015 Mar;76(2):113-24, 126-8. English, German. [DOI:10.1007/s00056-014-0275-z] [PMID]
14. Monini Ada C, Gandini Júnior LG, dos Santos-Pinto A, Maia LG, Rodrigues WC. Procedures adopted by orthodontists for space closure and anchorage control. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013 Nov-Dec;18(6):86-92. [DOI:10.1590/S2176-94512013000600013] [PMID]
15. Krieger E, Yildizhan Z, Wehrbein H. One palatal implant for skeletal anchorage--frequency and range of indications. Head Face Med. 2015 Apr 21;11:15. [DOI:10.1186/s13005-015-0073-x] [PMID] []
16. Markic G, Katsaros C, Pandis N, Eliades T. Temporary anchorage device usage: a survey among Swiss orthodontists. Prog Orthod. 2014 Apr 1;15(1):29. [DOI:10.1186/s40510-014-0029-x] [PMID] []
17. Golshah A, Rahnemoon MF, Bagheri Z, Karami N. Frequency of using miniscrew anchorage by the iranian orthodontists. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2021;9(D):98-102. [DOI:10.3889/oamjms.2021.5866]
18. Meeran NA, Venkatesh KG, Jaseema Parveen MF. Current trends in miniscrew utilization among Indian orthodontists. J Orthod Sci. 2012 Apr;1(2):46-50. [DOI:10.4103/2278-0203.99762] [PMID] []
19. Barthelemi S, Beauval H. Prevalence of the use of anchorage miniscrews among French orthodontists. Int Orthod. 2015 Dec;13(4):436-61. [DOI:10.1016/j.ortho.2015.09.011] [PMID]
20. Mothobela TF, Sethusa MP, Khan M. The use of temporary skeletal anchorage devices amongst South African orthodontists. SADJ. 2016;71(10):513-7.
21. Van Sant LA. Survey Of Canadian Orthodontists Regarding Orthodontic Miniscrew Usage. The University of Western Ontario (Canada); 2020.
22. Cornelis MA, Scheffler NR, Nyssen-Behets C, De Clerck HJ, Tulloch JF. Patients' and orthodontists' perceptions of miniplates used for temporary skeletal anchorage: a prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Jan;133(1):18-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.049] [PMID] []
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
