PREFERENCES IN MINI-IMPLANT DIMENSIONS AMONG ROMANIAN ORTHODONTISTS
"Introduction. Anchorage in orthodontics is critical for managing malocclusions, traditionally achieved via intraoral appliances. Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs) like mini-implants offer enhanced control by being temporarily fixed in bone. These devices, made from materials like titanium and...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Romanian Society of Oral Rehabilitation
2025-06-01
|
| Series: | Romanian Journal of Oral Rehabilitation |
| Online Access: | https://rjor.ro/preferences-in-mini-implant-dimensions-among-romanian-orthodontists/ |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849404304421552128 |
|---|---|
| author | Teodora Consuela Bungau Ligia Vaida Abel Moca Camelia Liana Buhas Cristina Ioana Talpoș-Niculescu Mariana Pacurar Dragos Craciun Malina Popa |
| author_facet | Teodora Consuela Bungau Ligia Vaida Abel Moca Camelia Liana Buhas Cristina Ioana Talpoș-Niculescu Mariana Pacurar Dragos Craciun Malina Popa |
| author_sort | Teodora Consuela Bungau |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | "Introduction. Anchorage in orthodontics is critical for managing malocclusions, traditionally achieved via intraoral appliances. Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs) like mini-implants offer enhanced control by being temporarily fixed in bone. These devices, made from materials like titanium and stainless steel, vary in size and are selected based on multiple factors, including patient characteristics and anatomical considerations. This study explores the preferences of Romanian orthodontists concerning mini-implant dimensions and systems, addressing a gap in local data and aiming to align practices with evidence-based standards.
Materials and methods. This study employed a questionnaire distributed via social media to Romanian dental professionals from June to September 2024. Data on mini-implant usage, preferences for dimensions, and complications were collected. Ethical approval was secured from the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of Oradea, with participant consent implied through questionnaire completion. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS, focusing on the correlation between mini-implant dimensions and clinical outcomes.
Results. Mini-implants are widely used with preferences for specific dimensions varying by anatomical location. The most common sizes in the maxillary interradicular area were 1.6 x 8 mm and 1.6 x 10 mm. Complications were associated with the use of inappropriate mini-implant sizes, particularly in areas requiring precise dimensional fitting. The study found a notable preference for larger and longer mini-implants in regions like the infrazygomatic area, with a significant portion of orthodontists not using mini-implants in less common locations due to variability in training and resource access.
Conclusions. Proper selection of mini-implant sizes is crucial for optimizing clinical outcomes and minimizing complications. The study underscores the importance of comprehensive training and access to diverse mini-implant systems to accommodate varied clinical needs and preferences. Future initiatives should focus on standardizing orthodontic practices in Romania to enhance the success rates of orthodontic treatments involving TADs."
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-95ccd1a2815646b5b397d5e855d1b2ab |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2066-7000 2601-4661 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-06-01 |
| publisher | Romanian Society of Oral Rehabilitation |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Romanian Journal of Oral Rehabilitation |
| spelling | doaj-art-95ccd1a2815646b5b397d5e855d1b2ab2025-08-20T03:37:02ZengRomanian Society of Oral RehabilitationRomanian Journal of Oral Rehabilitation2066-70002601-46612025-06-0117238639910.62610/RJOR.2025.2.17.34PREFERENCES IN MINI-IMPLANT DIMENSIONS AMONG ROMANIAN ORTHODONTISTSTeodora Consuela Bungau0Ligia Vaida1Abel Moca2Camelia Liana Buhas3Cristina Ioana Talpoș-Niculescu4Mariana Pacurar5Dragos Craciun6Malina Popa7University of Oradea, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Department of DentistryUniversity of Oradea, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Department of DentistryUniversity of Oradea, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Department of DentistryUniversity of Oradea, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Department of Morphological DisciplinesUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy "Victor Babeș" Timisoara, Faculty of Dentistry, Department IOrthodontic Department Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Medicine Pharmacy, Science and Technology G E Palade, Gh Marinescu nr 38, Targu Mures, RomaniaUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy "Victor Babeș" Timisoara, Faculty of Dentistry, Department IIUniversity of Medicine and Pharmacy "Victor Babeș" Timisoara, Faculty of Dentistry, Department II"Introduction. Anchorage in orthodontics is critical for managing malocclusions, traditionally achieved via intraoral appliances. Temporary Anchorage Devices (TADs) like mini-implants offer enhanced control by being temporarily fixed in bone. These devices, made from materials like titanium and stainless steel, vary in size and are selected based on multiple factors, including patient characteristics and anatomical considerations. This study explores the preferences of Romanian orthodontists concerning mini-implant dimensions and systems, addressing a gap in local data and aiming to align practices with evidence-based standards. Materials and methods. This study employed a questionnaire distributed via social media to Romanian dental professionals from June to September 2024. Data on mini-implant usage, preferences for dimensions, and complications were collected. Ethical approval was secured from the Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of Oradea, with participant consent implied through questionnaire completion. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS, focusing on the correlation between mini-implant dimensions and clinical outcomes. Results. Mini-implants are widely used with preferences for specific dimensions varying by anatomical location. The most common sizes in the maxillary interradicular area were 1.6 x 8 mm and 1.6 x 10 mm. Complications were associated with the use of inappropriate mini-implant sizes, particularly in areas requiring precise dimensional fitting. The study found a notable preference for larger and longer mini-implants in regions like the infrazygomatic area, with a significant portion of orthodontists not using mini-implants in less common locations due to variability in training and resource access. Conclusions. Proper selection of mini-implant sizes is crucial for optimizing clinical outcomes and minimizing complications. The study underscores the importance of comprehensive training and access to diverse mini-implant systems to accommodate varied clinical needs and preferences. Future initiatives should focus on standardizing orthodontic practices in Romania to enhance the success rates of orthodontic treatments involving TADs." https://rjor.ro/preferences-in-mini-implant-dimensions-among-romanian-orthodontists/ |
| spellingShingle | Teodora Consuela Bungau Ligia Vaida Abel Moca Camelia Liana Buhas Cristina Ioana Talpoș-Niculescu Mariana Pacurar Dragos Craciun Malina Popa PREFERENCES IN MINI-IMPLANT DIMENSIONS AMONG ROMANIAN ORTHODONTISTS Romanian Journal of Oral Rehabilitation |
| title | PREFERENCES IN MINI-IMPLANT DIMENSIONS AMONG ROMANIAN ORTHODONTISTS |
| title_full | PREFERENCES IN MINI-IMPLANT DIMENSIONS AMONG ROMANIAN ORTHODONTISTS |
| title_fullStr | PREFERENCES IN MINI-IMPLANT DIMENSIONS AMONG ROMANIAN ORTHODONTISTS |
| title_full_unstemmed | PREFERENCES IN MINI-IMPLANT DIMENSIONS AMONG ROMANIAN ORTHODONTISTS |
| title_short | PREFERENCES IN MINI-IMPLANT DIMENSIONS AMONG ROMANIAN ORTHODONTISTS |
| title_sort | preferences in mini implant dimensions among romanian orthodontists |
| url | https://rjor.ro/preferences-in-mini-implant-dimensions-among-romanian-orthodontists/ |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT teodoraconsuelabungau preferencesinminiimplantdimensionsamongromanianorthodontists AT ligiavaida preferencesinminiimplantdimensionsamongromanianorthodontists AT abelmoca preferencesinminiimplantdimensionsamongromanianorthodontists AT camelialianabuhas preferencesinminiimplantdimensionsamongromanianorthodontists AT cristinaioanatalposniculescu preferencesinminiimplantdimensionsamongromanianorthodontists AT marianapacurar preferencesinminiimplantdimensionsamongromanianorthodontists AT dragoscraciun preferencesinminiimplantdimensionsamongromanianorthodontists AT malinapopa preferencesinminiimplantdimensionsamongromanianorthodontists |