What are the effects of surgical anchorage techniques compared to conventional anchorage in preventing unwanted tooth movement in orthodontic treatment?

This summary is based on the Cochrane Oral Health Group review: Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods (August 2014)

Safa Jambi, Tanya Walsh, Jonathan Sandler, Philip E Benson, Richard M Skeggs, Kevin D O’Brien

Context

Orthodontic treatment is used to correct crooked or sticking out teeth by moving the affected teeth into the correct position. The teeth are straightened by using a brace. Sometimes unwanted movement of other teeth is caused by the use of a brace and this is controlled by what is known as anchorage, or methods for stabilizing these teeth.

The term anchorage in orthodontic treatment refers to methods of controlling unwanted tooth movement. This is provided either by anchor sites within the mouth, such as the teeth and the palate, or from outside the mouth (headgear). Sometimes when devices such as headgear are used there are issues with patients being reluctant to wear them, or they have been reported to cause injuries.

Recently, new methods of providing anchorage have been developed using orthodontic implants which are surgically inserted into the bone in the mouth. This is termed surgical anchorage. These types of devices have become increasingly popular, however their effects have not been fully evaluated.

Purpose of the Review

• To assess the effects of surgical anchorage techniques compared to conventional anchorage in the prevention of unwanted tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment by evaluating the mesiodistal movement of upper first molar teeth.
• A secondary objective was to compare the effects of one type of surgical anchorage with another.

Key Findings

• When surgically implanted anchorage devices were compared to conventional anchorage devices, they were better in providing stabilization for preventing unwanted movement in teeth during orthodontic treatment.
• There was limited information on patient-reported outcomes such as pain and how acceptable the devices were found to be.
• No information was reported on adverse events.

References

List of references included in the review (PDF)