Meta-analysis dataset comparing orthodontic mini-implants and conventional anchorage reinforcement for maximum orthodontic anchorage
Gui-Feng Li,
Zhen-Jin Yang,
Tiang-Cong Wang,
Cai-Xia Zhang,
JIan-Yun Zhang,
Jin-Dong Chen,
Ye Cheng,
Jing Zhou,
Chao Liu
Affiliations
Gui-Feng Li
Department of Orthodontics, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Zhen-Jin Yang
Department of Orthodontics, The Affiliated Stomatology Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming City, China
Tiang-Cong Wang
Department of Orthodontics, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Cai-Xia Zhang
Department of Orthodontics, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
JIan-Yun Zhang
Department of Orthodontics, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Jin-Dong Chen
Department of Orthodontics, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Ye Cheng
Department of Orthodontics, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.
Jing Zhou
Department of Stomatology, Yanan Hospital of Kunming City, Kunming, China
Chao Liu
Department of Orthodontics, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, China.; Corresponding authors.
The present article describes data from systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the efficacy and safety outcomes comparing mini-implants (MIs) and conventional anchorage reinforcement in patients with maximum dentoalveolar protrusion. All relevant RCTs and non-RCTs published up to 2018 were collected from PubMed, Embase and Cochrane database. Thirteen studies assessing the effect of mini-implants were included, of which 4 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 9 observational studies. The efficacy parameters include mesiodistal movements of molars and incisors and vertical movements of molars and incisors. Whereas, the safety parameters were angular and linear measurement of soft tissue change. Subgroup analysis data was provided in terms of patients average age (<18 years and ≥18 years) at the initiation of treatment. This dataset is suitable for research purpose in the field of orthodontics and also helps dental doctors to determine their treatment preferences in the choice of anchorage reinforcement.
