Comparative evaluation of two kinds of micro-implant system with different size / 华西口腔医学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To offer some reference for micro-implant's development and population by analyzing clinical application of two kinds of micro-implant systems.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>38 patients treated with MIA (micro-implant anchorage) and 28 patients treated with SDIA (self-driven titanium implant for orthodontic anchorage) were included. Analyzing the rate of lost implants, the gum's reactivity and the efficiency of moving teeth summarized the excellences and shortcomings of two systems.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>1) Six of MIA implants fell off after being inserted. Seven of SDIA implants lost when they had been implanted for a month. But they were stable after being inserted again. 2) The gum around 12 SDIA implants got inflammation symptom, but the gum around MIA implants was normal. 3) Both MIA implants and SDIA implants could move teeth effectively and persistently when they were stable.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>When we apply micro-implant in clinic, we should prevent it from closing roots of teeth and choose the small tip micro-implant. The embedded position should be in area of attachment gum. At the same time, the areas around the tip of micro-implant should be keeping clean.</p>

Comparison between J-hook and micro-implant anchorage in the treatment of patients with bimaxillary protrusion / 中华口腔医学杂志

<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To compare the difference between J-hook and micro-implant anchorage in the treatment of patient with bimaxillary protrusion.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>Thirty patients with bimaxillary protrusion were divided into two groups (J-hook and micro-implant groups) and treated with MBT appliance. Four first premolars were extracted in all patients. Cephalometric analyses were carried out before and after treatment.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>In J-hook group and micro-implant group,computerized cephalometric analysis revealed that before treatment U6C-PP was (12.4 +/- 0.2) mm and (12.5 +/- 0.1) mm, respectively,and after treatment U6C-PP was (12.6 +/- 0.1) mm and (12.8 +/- 0.1) mm,respectively. The difference between J-hook group and microimplant group was significant (P < 0.01). The other differences of cephalometric analyses between J-hook group and micro-implant group was not significant.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Both J-hook and micro-implant could provide adequate anchorage in the treatment of patients with bimaxillary protrusion.</p>