Patients' and orthodontists' perceptions of miniplates used for temporary skeletal anchorage: a prospective study

Abstract

Introduction: Temporary skeletal anchorage is a relatively recent addition to orthodontic treatment. Surgical miniplates, modified with intraoral attachments, provide an alternative to miniscrews for skeletal anchorage. In this study, we wanted to determine patients' and providers' perceptions of miniplate use during orthodontic treatment.

Methods: Consecutive patients having miniplates placed as part of their treatment completed questionnaires about their experiences during surgery and orthodontic treatment. A total of 200 miniplates were placed for 97 patients. The 30 orthodontists treating these patients also completed questionnaires concerning miniplate success, handling complexity, and whether these devices simplified treatment.

Results: The success rate was 92.5%. The devices were well tolerated by the patients. After a year, 72% of the patients reported that they did not mind having the implant, and 82% said that the surgical experience was better than expected, with little or no pain. The most frequent problems were postsurgical swelling, lasting 5 days on average, and cheek irritation experienced initially by more than a third of the patients, but it lessened over time. The clinicians reported that these devices were easy to use and greatly simplified orthodontic treatment.

Conclusions: Miniplates are well accepted by patients and providers and are a safe and effective adjunct for complex orthodontic treatments.

Figures

Fig 1

Miniplates: A, maxillary and B, mandibular (Bollard; Surgitec, Bruges, Belgium); C, C-Tube (KLS Martin, Umkirch, Germany).

Fig 2

Number of patients at the 2 centers receiving TSADs for various clinical conditions.

Fig 3

A, Distalization of premolars and molars with open-coil spring placed between the anchor and the sliding tube; B, maxillary protraction with Class III elastics placed between maxillary posterior and mandibular anterior miniplates.

Fig 4

Mean, median, and range of patients’ perceived pain after TSAD placement and during orthodontic treatment and the degree of swelling reported one month after placement.

Fig 5

Percentage of patients indicating TSAD better than other previously experienced dental procedures.

Fig 6

Percentage of patients reporting side effects at various times.

Fig 7

A, Mean, median, and range of orthodontists’ perceived difficulty of treatment with and without TSADs and the difficulty they experienced using TSADs; B, mean, median, and range of orthodontists’ reports of satisfaction with TSAD and side effects observed in patients.