Authors (Year)

Type of evidence

Methodology

Results/Conclusion

Block and Hoffman (1995) [6]

Animal study

Studied the effects of stabilising molars during incisors retraction.

-Canine study: Four mongrel dogs were used. In each dog onplants were placed onto the palate.

-Monkey study: Five monkeys were used in the study. One monkey served as a control, and the remaining four had one onplant placed in the middle of the palate opposite the maxillary second molar.

“The onplant is sufficiently anchored to the underlying bone to withstand 11 ounces of continuous force. It is sufficiently anchored by the HA-bone biointegrated interface to resist up to 160 pounds of shear force. The onplant can provide absolute anchorage to move a tooth toward it without moving the onplant”.

Chen et al. (2007) [10]

Animal study

Sixteen rabbits were used in the study, and 3 onplants were placed on the calvaria of each rabbit (n=48). The rabbits were divided into 4 healing-period groups with 12 onplants in each group: 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Bone blocks, each containing an onplant, were prepared for either histologic examination or biomechanical characterisation

“The notion of loading onplants for orthodontic tooth movement as early as possible needs further clinical study for verification”.

Feldmann et al. (2007) [11]

RCT

A total of 120 adolescent patients were recruited and randomised into three groups. Group A underwent installation of an onplant, group B installation of an Orthosystem implant, and group C premolar extraction. Pain intensity and discomfort, analgesic consumption, limitations in daily activities, and functional jaw impairment were evaluated the first evening and one week after the intervention.

“The Orthosystem implant was better tolerated than the onplant in terms of pain intensity, discomfort, and analgesic consumption and was, therefore, the anchorage system of choice in a short-term perspective”.

Feldmann & Bondemark (2008) [8]

RCT

A total of 120 patients were recruited and randomised into 4 anchorage systems: Onplant, Orthosystem implant, headgear, and transpalatal bar. The main outcome measures were cephalometric analysis of maxillary first molar and incisor movement, sagittal growth changes of the maxilla, and treatment time.

“The Onplant and the Orthosystem implant groups had significantly higher success rates for anchorage than did the headgear and transpalatal bar groups. Compared with the Orthosystem implant, there were more technical problems with the Onplant”.

Feldmann et al. (2012) [9]

RCT

A total of 120 adolescent patients in order to start orthodontic treatment were consecutively recruited and randomised into three groups with different anchorage. Group A underwent installation of a skeletal anchorage (Onplant or Orthosystem implant), group B received headgear, and group C a transpalatal bar.

“Very few significant differences between different anchorage groups in terms of perceived pain intensity, discomfort and jaw function impairment”.

Heuberer et al. (2016) [12]

Case series

Two Onplants were placed subperiosteally in the anterior part of the hard palate in five adult patients presenting a highly atrophic edentulous maxilla, class V or VI, according to Cawood and Howell. After a healing period of 4 months the prosthetic procedures were started.

“Unexpectedly, the present study had to be discontinued due to the early loss of all 10 Onplants at the time of prosthetic loading. In total, 16 patients were meant to participate, but the study was stopped after complete failures of the first five patients”.

Heuberer et al. (2011) [13]

Case series

A surgical/prosthodontic approach was chosen for six patients with subtotal edentulism despite their young age. To support removable dentures the maxilla was treated with onplants (OnPlants), whereas dental root form implants (NobelReplaces, Nobel Biocare) were placed in the mandible.

“While none of the root form implants was lost, one Onplant was lost and replaced with a stable outcome”.

Hong et al. (2005) [14]

Case report

A hexagonal onplant of 7.7 mm diameter was placed on the palatal bone of the maxilla in an 11-year five-month-old female patient with a Class III malocclusion and midface deficiency. Elastic traction (400 g per side) was applied from a facemask to the onplant at 30° to the occlusal plane 12 hours per day for 12 months.

“These results suggest that Onplants can be used as an extremely stable anchorage for maxillary orthopedic facemask treatment”.

Janssens et al. (2002) [7]

Case report

Report the use of an onplant for palatal anchorage to extrude the unerupted horizontal maxillary first molars in a 12-year-old white girl with tooth aplasia and secondary cleft palate

“After a healing period of 5 months, the Onplant remained stable under indirect elastic tension of approximately 160 g applied for 17 weeks, and the maxillary first molars were successfully extruded”.