Cortical bone thickness and root proximity at mandibular interradicular sites: implications for orthodontic mini-implant placement

Comparison of cortical bone thickness and root proximity at maxillary and mandibular interradicular sites for orthodontic mini‐implant placement

“…Another study showed that in the majority of sites placement at 30° and 45° angles and at 4–6 mm from the alveolar crest appeared to increase bone to mini‐implant contact significantly; however, an exception was observed at the 2 mm level apical to the alveolar crest (6). The same contact characteristics were reported for the cortical bone thickness in mandible (7). The cortical bone thickness at the 2 mm level apical to the alveolar crest at a 0° angle exhibited good contact because such sites near the alveolar crest have cortical bone occupying the space between buccal and lingual sides.…”

Root proximity and cortical bone thickness effects on the success rate of orthodontic micro-implants using cone beam computed tomography

“…[13][14][15][16] Deguchi et al 15 suggested that in terms of cortical bone thickness, the best available location for a miniscrew is mesial or distal to the first molar, and the best angulation is 30u from the long axis of the tooth. Lim et al 16 reported a statistically significant increase in the cortical bone thickness when the placement angle was increased. However, Petrey et al 20 concluded that placement of temporary anchorage devices at 90u to the synthetic cortical plate gave the best retention.…”

“…Deguchi et al 15 suggested that angling the implant at approximately 30u would increase the contact with the cortical bone by as much as 1.5 times more than placing implants perpendicular to the long axis of the teeth. Lim et al 16 also suggested that placing mini-implants at 30u or 45u would increase the contact with the cortical bone.…”

“…Among them, root proximity to the orthodontic implant and cortical bone thickness have been reported frequently. [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] Kuroda et al 11 concluded that the proximity of a miniscrew to the root was a major risk factor for failure of the screw. In contrast, Kim et al 12 reported that the amount of root contact area of a mini-implant was more important for its stability than root proximity.…”

Effects of orthodontic mini-implant position in the dragon helix appliance on tooth displacement and stress distribution: a three-dimensional finite element analysis

“…1 The insertion position or angle of the OMI can influence its stability and efficiency, which have been studied in the direct anchorage system. 17,18 Placement of the OMI between the maxillary second premolar and the maxillary first molar, which was the recommended OMI position inmany studies, 1,19,20 is often difficult because of anatomical limitations or root proximity. In this study, the maximal efficiency of indirect anchorage was observed when the OMI was positioned between the second premolar and the first molar (group 2).…”