Original Research
Keywords: Skeletal anchorage; reinforced mini-implants; Surgical mini-plates; Bimaxillary protrusion; En-masse retraction; Orthodontic treatment.
Year : 2026 | Volume : 17 | Issue : 3 | Page : 116-125
Connected Mini Implants Versus Miniplates as Skeletal Anchorage for Maxillary En-masse Retraction- A Prospective, Split-mouth Clinical Study
Sowmithradevi Saravanan-1, Vijaya S Dandannavar-2, Balavenkata Bharathi Chaturvedula-3
1-Private Practice, Tamil Nadu, 2-Professor, MD PGDHPE, ACME, Department of Physiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, KAHER University, Belagavi, 3-Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Sri Balaji Dental College & Hospitals, Chennai
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To compare the positional stability, and patient-reported outcomes of connected mini-implants (MI) and mini-plates (MP) used as skeletal anchorage during maxillary anterior en-masse retraction.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was a prospective, single-center, split mouth non-randomized clinical trial. Ten adults with bimaxillary protrusion requiring maximum anchorage after first premolar extraction included in the study. In every participant, two self-tapping stainless steel mini-implants (1.5 × 8 mm) joined by a custom-made 3D printed connector plate were placed on the right side, and an L-shaped, 1.5-mm stainless steel mini-plate was placed in the left infrazygomatic crest. En-masse retraction used elastomeric chains (200 g per side) on 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel arch wires were done. Device migration was measured on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) as the change in distance from Orbitale to the mini-implant heads and mini-plate screw heads between the start (T0) and end (T1) of retraction. Clinical mobility (T0, 3 months, 6 months and T1), placement time and patient-reported outcomes like postoperative pain and discomfort was assessed.
RESULTS: All 10 participants completed the trial and were analyzed. Mean T0–T1 migration was 0.08 ± 0.11 mm and 0.06 ± 0.08 mm for the distal and mesial mini-implants, and 0.03 ± 0.09 mm and 0.02 ± 0.06 mm for the mesial and distal mini-plate screws, with no significant intragroup or intergroup differences. Placement time was shorter for MI than MP (p<0.001). Postoperative pain was reported by one of ten participants on the MI side versus all the participants on the MP side.
CONCLUSION: The connected mini-implants showed radiographic positional stability comparable to that of mini-plates, with a shorter, less invasive placement procedure, less postoperative pain and discomfort.
KEYWORDS:Skeletal anchorage; reinforced mini-implants; Surgical mini-plates; Bimaxillary protrusion; En-masse retraction; Orthodontic treatment.
FUNDING
No funding was obtained for this research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
How to cite this article: Sowmithradevi Saravanan, Vijaya S Dandannavar, Balavenkata Bharathi Chaturvedula. Connected Mini Implants Versus Miniplates as Skeletal Anchorage for Maxillary En-masse Retraction- A Prospective, Split-mouth Clinical Study.
Int J Orthod Rehabil 2026; 17 (3): 116-125.
Doi: 10.56501/Intjorthodrehabil.173.ijor0150