It is important to thoroughly test new materials as well as techniques when these innovations are to be utilized in the human clinical situation. Translational research fills this important niche. The purpose of translational research is to establish the continuity of evidence from the laboratory to the clinic and in so-doing, provide evidence that the material is functioning appropriately and that the process in the human will be successful. This concept applies to the mini-screw implant; which, has been very successfully introduced into the orthodontic armamentarium over the last decade for application as a temporary anchorage device. The examples of translational research that will be illustrated in this paper have paved the way to ensure that clinicians have evidence to confidently utilize mini-screw implants in orthodontic practice. Needless to say, more studies are needed to ensure a safe, effective and efficient manner to practice orthodontics.
AlbrektssonTErikssonR.Thermally induced bone necrosis in rabbits: relation to implant failure in humans. Clin Orthop1985; 195: 311–312.
2.
BerglundhTAbrahamssonILindheJ.Bone reactions to longstanding functional load at implants: an experimental study in dogs. J Clin Periodontol2005; 32: 925–932.
3.
BorahGLAshmeadD.The fate of teeth transfixed by osteosynthesis screws. Plast Reconstr Surg1996; 97: 726–729.
4.
BrånemarkPI. Osseointegration and its experimental background. J Prosthet Dent1983; 50: 399–410.
5.
BriscenoCERossouwPECarrilloRSpearsRBuschangPH. Healing of the roots and surrounding structures following intentional damage with miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2009; 135: 292–301.
6.
BuschangPHCarrilloRRossouwPE. Orthopedic correction of growing hyperdivergent, retrognathic patients with miniscrew implants. J Oral Maxillofac Surg2011; 69: 754–762.
7.
CarrilloRRossouwPEFrancoPFOppermanLABuschangPH. Intrusion of multiradicular teeth and related root resorption with mini-screw implant anchorage: a radiographic evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2007; 132: 647–655.
8.
ChaJYKilJKYoonTMHwangCJ. Miniscrew stability evaluated with computerized tomography scanning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2010; 137: 73–79.
9.
CopeJB. Temporary Anchorage Devices in Orthodontics: A paradigm shift. Semin Orthod2005; 11: 3–9.
10.
DalstraMCattaneoPMMelsenB.Load transfer of mini screws for orthodontic anchorage. Orthodontics2004; 1: 53–62.
11.
ErverdiNKelesANandaR.The use of skeletal anchorage in open bite treatment: A cephalometric evaluation. Angle Orthod2004; 74: 381.
12.
FabbroniGAabedSMizenKStarrDG. Transalveolar screws and the incidence of dental damage: a prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg2004; 33: 442–446.
13.
FarnsworthDRossouwPECeenRFBuschangPH. Cortical bone thickness at common miniscrew implant placement sites. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2011; 139(4): 495–503.
FeldmannIBondemarkL.Orthodontic anchorage: a systematic review. Angle Orthod2006; 76: 493–501.
16.
FontanarosaPBDeAngelisCD. Basic science and translational research in JAMA2002; 287(13): 1728.
17.
HembreeMBuschangPHCarrilloRSpearsRRossouwPE. The effects of intentional damage of the root and surrounding structures with miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2009; 135: 280e1–280e9.
HolmLCunninghamSJPetrieACousleyRRJ. An in vitro study of factors affecting the primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants. Angle Orthod2012; 82: 1022–1028.
20.
IkedaHRossouwPECampbellPMKontogirgosEBuschangPH. Three-dimensional analysis of peri-bone-implant contact of rough-surface miniscrew implants. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2011; 139(2): e153–e163.
21.
LiouEJPaiBCLinJC. Do miniscrews remain stationary under orthodontic forces?Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2004; 126: 42–47.
22.
MelsenB.Mini-implants: where are we?J Clin Orthod2005; 39: 539–547.
23.
MelsenBVernaC.Miniscrew implants: the Aarhus anchorage system. Semin Orthod2005; 11: 24–31.
24.
MorarendCQianFMarshallSDSouthardKAGroslandNMMorganTA. Effect of screw diameter on orthodontic skeletal anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2009; 136: 224–229.
25.
MortensenMGBuschangPHOliverDRKyungHMBehrentsRG. Stability of immediately loaded 3- and 6-mm miniscrew implants in beagle dogs—a pilot study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2009; 136: 251–259.
26.
OwensSBuschangPHCopeJFrancoPRossouwPE. Experimental evaluation of tooth movement in the beagle dog utilizing the mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2007; 132: 639–646.
27.
PickardMBDechowPRossouwPEBuschangPH. Effects of miniscrew orientation on implant stability and resistance to failure. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop2010; 137(1): 91–99.
28.
PoggioPMIncorvatiCVeloSCaranoA.‘Safe Zones’: a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch. Angle Orthod2006; 76: 191–197.
29.
Ramirez-EchaveJIBuschangPHCarrilloRRossouwPENagyWWOppermanLA. Histologic evaluation of root response to intrusion in mandibular teeth in beagle dogs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2011; 139: 60–69.
30.
RossouwPEBuschangPHCarrilloR.The Baylor experience with using mini-implants for orthodontic anchorage: Clinical and experimental evidence. In McNamara Jr JA, (ed), Microimplants as Temporary Orthodontic Anchorage. Craniofacial Growth Series. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 2008, Vol. 45. pp 407–459.
31.
SchnelleMABeckFMJaynesRMHujaSS. A radiographic evaluation of the availability of bone for placement of miniscrews. Angle Orthod2004; 74: 832–837.
32.
WoodsPWBuschangPHOwensSERossouwPEOppermanLA. The effect of force, timing, and location on bone-to-implant contact of miniscrew implants. Eur J Orthod2009; 31(3): 232–240.
