Experience of the surgeon affects the success rate of the placement of orthodontic miniplates
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v84.43123Keywords:
BAMP, resident, skeletal anchorage, orthodontics, surgeonAbstract
Background: Skeletal Class III patients can be treated with bone anchored maxillary protraction (BAMP) treatment. The placement of miniplates is an invasive operation and needs to be carried out under general anesthesia.
Aim: The aim of this retrospective study was to determine the failure rate of miniplates.
Methods: All the patients who had miniplates placed for BAMP treatment between January 2010 and April 2020 in Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases, Helsinki University Hospital, Finland were included in this study. The patient records were retrospectively screened. The success rate of the placement of orthodontic miniplates was evaluated between surgical residents (Group 1) and consultant surgeons (Group 2).
Materials: The study group consisted of 164 miniplates in 42 patients. The miniplates were divided into two groups, depending on the placement operator. Group 1 consisted of 86 miniplates placed by surgical residents. Group 2 consisted of 78 miniplates placed by consultant surgeons.
Results: In Group 1 (11 females, 14 males) and Group 2 (16 females, 9 males). The overall failure rate of miniplates was 23.8% (n = 39). The failure rate for surgical residents (Group 1) was 31.4% (n = 27) and for consultant surgeons (Group 2), 15.3% (n = 12) (p < 0.05). Out of all the failed miniplates 69.2% (n = 27) were placed by residents and 30.8% (n = 12) by consultants.
Limitations: This retrospective study consisted of a limited number of patients.
Conclusion: The failure rate of miniplates placed by consultant surgeons was lower compared to surgical residents (p < 0.05).
Downloads
References
ElIis E, McNamara JA. Components of adult III malocclusion class. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1984;42(5):295–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(84)90109-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0278-2391(84)90109-5
Bernabé E, Sheiham A, De Oliveira CM. Condition-specific impacts on quality of life attributed to malocclusion by adolescents with normal occlusion and class I, II and III malocclusion. Angle Orthodontist. 2008;78(6):977–82. https://doi.org/10.2319/091707-444.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/091707-444.1
Johnston C, Hunt O, Burden D, Stevenson M, Hepper P. Self-perception of dentofacial attractiveness among patients requiring orthognathic surgery. Angle Orthodontist. 2010;80(2):361–6. https://doi.org/10.2319/051209-252.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/051209-252.1
Hardy DK, Cubas YP, Orellana MF. Prevalence of angle class III malocclusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Open J Epidemiol. 2012;02(04):75–82. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojepi.2012.24012 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojepi.2012.24012
Hannuksela A. The prevalence of malocclusion and the need for orthodontic treatment in 9-year old Finnish schoolchildren. Proc Finn Dent. 1977;73(1):21–6.
Moreno Uribe LM, Miller SF. Genetics of the dentofacial variation in human malocclusion. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(S1):91–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12083 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ocr.12083
Xue F, Wong RWK, Rabie ABM. Genes, genetics, and class III malocclusion. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2010;13:69–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01485.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-6343.2010.01485.x
Franchi L, Baccetti T, McNamara JA. Postpubertal assessment of treatment timing for maxillary expansion and protraction therapy followed by fixed appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 2004;126(5):555–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.036 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.036
Hino CT, Cevidanes LHS, Nguyen TT, De Clerck HJ, Franchi L, McNamara JA. Three-dimensional analysis of maxillary changes associated with facemask and rapid maxillary expansion compared with bone anchored maxillary protraction. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 2013;144(5):705–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2013.07.011
De Guzmán-Barrera JR, Martínez CS, Boronat-Catalá M, Montiel-Company JM, Paredes-Gallardo V, Gandía-Franco JL, et al. Effectiveness of interceptive treatment of class III malocclusions with skeletal anchorage: a systematic review and metaanalysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(3):e0173875. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173875 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0173875
Wang J, Yang Y, Wang Y, Zhang L, Ji W, Hong Z, et al. Clinical effectiveness of different types of bone-anchored maxillary protraction devices for skeletal Class III malocclusion: systematic review and network meta-analysis. Korean J Orthod. 2022;52(5):313–23. https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod21.264 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod21.264
Proffit WR, Fields HWJ, Larson BJ, Sarver DM. Contemporary orthodontics. 6th ed. Elsevier/Mosby, St. Louis, MO: 2019.
De Clerck EEB, Swennen GRJ. Success rate of miniplate anchorage for bone anchored maxillary protraction. Angle Orthodontist. 2011;81(6):1010–3. https://doi.org/10.2319/012311-47.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/012311-47.1
Schätzle M, Männchen R, Zwahlen M, Lang NP. Survival and failure rates of orthodontic temporary anchorage devices: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2009;20(12):1351–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01754.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2009.01754.x
Van Hevele J, Nout E, Claeys T, Meyns J, Scheerlinck J, Politis C. Bone-anchored maxillary protraction to correct a class III skeletal relationship: a multicenter retrospective analysis of 218 patients. J Cranio-Maxillofacial Surg. 2018;46(10):1800–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.07.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcms.2018.07.007
Cornelis MA, Scheffler NR, Nyssen-Behets C, De Clerck HJ, Tulloch JFC. Patients’ and orthodontists’ perceptions of miniplates used for temporary skeletal anchorage: a prospective study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 2008;133(1):18–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.049 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.09.049
Yao CCJ, Chang HH, Chang JZC, Lai HH, Lu SC, Chen YJ. Revisiting the stability of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. J Formosan Med Assoc. 2015;114(11):1122–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2014.08.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfma.2014.08.001
Lam R, Goonewardene MS, Allan BP, Sugawara J. Success rates of a skeletal anchorage system in orthodontics: a retrospective analysis. Angle Orthodontist. 2018;88(1):27–34. https://doi.org/10.2319/060617-375.1 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2319/060617-375.1
De Clerck HJ, Cornelis MA, Cevidanes LH, Heymann GC, Tulloch CJF. Orthopedic traction of the Maxilla with miniplates: a new perspective for treatment of midface deficiency. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009;67(10):2123–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joms.2009.03.007
Hameed O, Amin N, Haria P, Patel B, Hay N. Orthodontic burden of care for patients with a cleft lip and/or palate. J Orthod. 2019;46(1):63–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/1465312518823010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1465312518823010
Thean D, Gebauer D, Wan K, Vujcich N, Goonewardene M. Retrospective comparison of the number of screws used for fixation of skeletal anchorage plates in orthodontics, and their failure rates. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2018;56(10):941–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.10.275 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjoms.2018.10.275
Choi BH, Zhu SJ, Kim YH. A clinical evaluation of titanium miniplates as anchors for orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthoped. 2005;128(3):382–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.016
Chen YJ, Chang HH, Huang CY, Hung HC, Lai EHH, Yao CCJ. A retrospective analysis of the failure rate of three different orthodontic skeletal anchorage systems. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;18(6):768–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01405.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2007.01405.x
Gabel SA, Morrison ZD, Sharma R, Wernberg JA. Resident participation as co-surgeon does not adversely impact patient outcomes in pancreatic surgery. J Surg Educ. 2020;77(6):1528–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.04.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2020.04.006
Hossein Almassi G, Carr BM, Bishawi M, Shroyer AL, Quin JA, Hattler B, et al. Resident versus attending surgeon graft patency and clinical outcomes in on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery Read at the 95th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Seattle, Washington, April 25–29, 2015. J Thoracic Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;150(6):1428–437.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.124 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2015.08.124
Cornelis MA, Vandergugten S, Mahy P, De Clerck HJ, Lengelé B, D’Hoore W, et al. Orthodontic loading of titanium miniplates in dogs: Microradiographic and histological evaluation. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2008;19(10):1054–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01553.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0501.2008.01553.x
Cornelis MA, Tepedino M, Riis NDV, Niu X, Cattaneo PM. Treatment effect of bone-Anchored maxillary protraction in growing patients compared to controls: a systematic review with meta-Analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2021;43:51–68. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaa016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjaa016
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Elina Savolainen, Lotta Veistinen, Antti Asikainen, Anu Kiukkonen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica publishes original research papers as well as critical reviews relevant to the diagnosis, epidemiology, health service, prevention, aetiology, pathogenesis, pathology, physiology, microbiology, development and treatment of diseases affecting tissues of the oral cavity and associated structures including papers on cause and effect or explanatory/associative relationships for experimental or observational studies.
