Volume 75 • Number 1 176 Background: Implants replacing missing teeth pro- vide advantages over clinical orthodontic treatment as compensation for reaction forces is no longer nec- essary and the lack of teeth is immediately resolved. Methods: A total of 38 two-stage implants were inserted (16 in maxilla, 22 in mandible) in 10 par- tially edentulous patients with orthodontic problems. Osseointegration and marginal bone levels were assessed via intra-oral radiographs taken at the abut- ment stage and at the completion of the orthodontic treatment and also via probing depth, measurement of recession toward the implant/abutment (I/A) inter- face, and sulcus bleeding index, recorded after com- pletion of orthodontic treatment. Results: In the maxilla, the cumulative survival rate was 87.1% after 2 years; for the mandible, it remained 100%. Mean amount of bone loss was 1.6 mm for max- illa and 0.8 mm for mandible. No correlation could be found between directions of orthodontic forces and marginal bone loss. Mean percentage of bleeding sites was 38.5% and 25%, respectively, for implants in the maxilla and mandible. Attachment level was 1.2 mm (SD: 1.2) below I/A interface after completion of the orthodonic treatment. Conclusion: No significant marginal bone loss was present. Using implants during orthodontics can result in an easier and more predictable treatment. J Peri- odontol 2004;75:176-181. KEY WORDS Dental implants; orthodontics, corrective. Failure rates varying from 1% to 8% in the lower and 3% to 13% in the upper jaw were reported for individ- ual implants ‡ supporting fixed partial prostheses in both short- 1,2 and long-term 3,4 studies. These reas- suring observations have encouraged many clinicians to use implants for orthodontic anchorage. 5-17 Due to their ankylotic behavior, osseointegrated implants are ideal anchors for orthodontic appliances and facilitate tooth movements. External appliances to anchor teeth or to compensate for reaction forces (e.g., headgear, mask of Delaire) can be omitted. This is a significant advantage since extraoral appliances are not always well accepted by patients. During the last decade, several modalities using implants have been suggested for orthodontic treat- ment: onplants that adhere to the bone surface, mostly palatal, 18 specially designed implants that can be fixed to the lateral wall of the alveolar process or in the zygoma, 19,20 micro- 21,22 and mini-implants, 23-25 bio- degradable implants, 26 mid-palatal screw-shaped implants, 27-30 and especially implants within the dental arch. 31,32 The latter approach is only possible in cases with missing teeth. The implants can, when following strict rules during treatment planning, later be used as abutments for tooth replacement. 32 The impact of orthodontic forces on endosseous implants has been examined in several animal studies indicating that the former did not interfere with osseointegration. In par- ticular, only minor changes could be detected for marginal bone level, probing depth, bone-to implant contact, and bone density. 33-36 However, clinical stud- ies investigating the influence of the orthodontic treat- ment on the peri-implant parameters are lacking. The present study aims to evaluate the cumulative failure rate of consecutively placed, intra-arch implants used as orthodontic anchorage. The change in mar- ginal bone loss was studied using a series of radi- ographs taken with the paralleling technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS Study Population This longitudinal study enrolled 10 consecutive partially edentulous patients in need of orthodontic treatment and in whom orthodontic implants could be used to anchor the orthodontic appliance in order Periodontal Parameters Around Implants Anchoring Orthodontic Appliances: A Series of Case Reports Liene Molly,* Guy Willems, † Daniel van Steenberghe,* and Marc Quirynen* * Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. † Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Leuven. ‡ Brånemark System, Nobel Biocare, Gothenburg, Sweden. Case Series