Evaluation of Interdental Spaces of the Mandibular Posterior Area for Orthodontic Mini-Implants with Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Moslemzadeh, Seyed Hossein; Sohrabi, Aydin; Rafighi, Ali; Kananizadeh, Yusef; Nourizadeh, Amin

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2017/25436.9520

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, some others did not use 3D CBCT scans for such measurements [ 31 , 33 ] or used different sections such as sagittal sections [ 30 , 32 ]. Moreover, different methods of measurement may explain some differences in the results [ 2 , 24 , 27 , 30 , 33 ]. On the other hand, some previous studies [ 2 , 14 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 33 ] did not classify the patients based on their sagittal skeletal pattern.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The inclusion criteria were absence of periodontal disease and alveolar bone loss, no history of previous orthodontic treatment, absence of severe skeletal discrepancy, no congenital missing (except for third molars), absence of severe crowding, and absence of developmental anomalies such as cleft lip and palate, or syndromes [ 2 ]. The cephalometric indices used for assessment of the sagittal pattern and the severity of skeletal discrepancy included the ANB angle and the Wits appraisal; according to which, the samples were divided into class I (ANB: 0°–4°; Wits 0 to − 1), class II (ANB > 4°, Wits > 0) and class III (ANB < 0°, Wits < − 1) groups.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Orthodontic anchorage is defined as resistance against unwanted tooth movements [ 1 ]. Achieving maximum anchorage with no movement of the anchorage unit has always been a challenge in orthodontics, and success of treatment depends on the control and preparation of anchorage [ 2 , 3 ]. Miniscrews, as the providers of skeletal anchorage, are gaining increasing popularity among orthodontists due to advantages such as provision of excellent anchorage, easy placement and retrieval, low cost, and small size [ 1 , 4 – 6 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The majority of the available literature regarding miniscrews have focused on their morphological parameters such as type, shape, diameter, and length, or assessed different anatomical sites for safe placement of miniscrews in inter-radicular spaces in the maxilla and mandible, reporting controversial results [ 2 , 7 , 11 , 13 – 20 ]. A previous study discussed that vertical skeletal pattern can serve as an important factor in success of miniscrew placement in the posterior buccal areas [ 21 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interradicular distance and alveolar bone thickness for miniscrew insertion: a CBCT study of Persian adults with different sagittal skeletal patterns

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to assess the interradicular distance and alveolar bone thickness of Persian adults with different sagittal skeletal patterns for miniscrew insertion using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods This cross-sectional study was conducted on maxillary and mandibular CBCT scans of 60 patients (18–35 years) in three groups (n = 20) of class I, II and III sagittal skeletal pattern. Anatomical and skeletal parameters were measured at 2, 4 and 6 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) by one examiner. The intra- and inter-class correlation coefficients were calculated to assess the intra, and interobserver reliability. Data were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey’s test (alpha = 0.05). Results The intra- and interobserver reliability were > 0.9 for all parameters. The largest inter-radicular distance in the maxilla was between the central incisors (1–1) in classes I and III, and between premolars (4–5) in class II patients. The largest inter-radicular distance in the mandible was between molar teeth (6–7) in all three classes. The buccal cortical plate thickness was maximum at the site of mandibular first and second molars (6–7). The posterior maxilla and mandible showed the maximum thickness of cancellous bone and alveolar process. Wide variations were noted in this respect between class I, II and III patients. Conclusions The area with maximum inter-radicular distance and optimal alveolar bone thickness for miniscrew insertion varies in different individuals, depending on their sagittal skeletal pattern.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Interradicular distance and alveolar bone thickness for miniscrew insertion: a CBCT study of Persian adults with different sagittal skeletal patterns

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…12,13 Mental foramen lies between 1 st and 2 nd mandibular premolar. 14 Buccal alveolar cortical depth becomes thinner in the posterior region. It is only about 1-1.5 mm at the distal aspect of the 2 nd molar.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement of inter radicular bone width in different growth patterns for determining safe zone for placement of miniscrew implants – A cone beam computed tomography study

Sarje¹,

Despande²,

Ashtekar³

et al. 2021

IJODR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To measure the inter-radicular spaces in both arches for miniscrew implant placement and to determine the most reliable sites using CBCT. A CBCT radiograph was taken for 75 subjects that met with inclusion criteria. They were divided into 3 categories- Hypodivergent, average, and hyperdivergent group. Images were calibrated by using software and printed as a film. Interradicular space on the right side of the jaw was measured in the sagittal plane after assuming the jaw to be symmetrical. Bucco-lingual and mesiodistal width were measured up to desired bone levels. In vertical growth pattern, in posterior maxilla highest mesiodistal width between 2nd premolar and 1st molar at 7mm. In the mandible, it was between the 1st and 2nd molar at 11mm. In horizontal growth pattern, in posterior maxilla highest mesiodistal width between 1st and 2nd premolar, and mandible it was between 1st and 2nd molar at 11mm. In average growth pattern, in posterior maxilla highest mesiodistal width between 2nd premolar and 1st molar and 1st molar at 7mm. In the mandible, it was between the 1st and 2nd molar at 11mm. The importance of the relationship between the growth pattern and the availability of inter radicular space may aid the clinician in planning appropriate surgical sites for miniscrew implant placement.

show abstract

Comparación de distancias interradiculares y grosor del hueso cortical en dos sectores del maxilar inferior para colocación de mini implantes

Zatarain

Rojo

Castrejón

2018

Acta Odontol. Colomb.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introducción: la colocación de mini implantes interradiculares, como alternativa para el anclaje de aparatología ortodóntica, varía acorde a la clasificación esquelética del paciente Clase I o II. Es necesario realizar la correcta identificación de la ubicación radicular y grosor cortical como parte del análisis estratégico del área a intervenir. Objetivo: comparar tomográficamente las distancias interradiculares y grosor del hueso cortical en dos sectores del maxilar inferior para colocación de mini implantes. Materiales y métodos: estudio transversal que incluyó 120 tomografías computarizadas de haz cónico, pertenecientes a pacientes Clase I (60) y Clase II (60) esquelética. Se identificó tomográficamente la distancia interradicular, el ancho bucolingual y el grosor del hueso cortical bucal, a partir de la cresta alveolar entre el segundo premolar y primer molar inferior derecho y entre el canino y lateral del mismo lado. Un análisis estadístico con prueba t Student al 95% de confianza comparó la ubicación de las estructuras anatómicas para clase I y II esquelética. Resultados: en la distancia interradicular, comparativamente entre clase I y II, se encontró significancia entre canino y lateral derecho (p=< 0.054) a los 8 mm. En este mismo sector, en el ancho bucolingual, se encontró diferencia significativa a 6mm de altura (p=<.04). En el grosor del hueso cortical no se encontraron diferencias estadísticas al comparar los valores para la Clase I y II. Conclusiones: en Clase I y II, el mayor espesor para la colocación de mini implantes se registró en el espacio interradicular a 8 mm de altura y en el ancho bucolingual a 6 mm.

show abstract

Evaluation of Interdental Spaces of the Mandibular Posterior Area for Orthodontic Mini-Implants with Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

Cited by 6 publications

References 25 publications

Interradicular distance and alveolar bone thickness for miniscrew insertion: a CBCT study of Persian adults with different sagittal skeletal patterns

Interradicular distance and alveolar bone thickness for miniscrew insertion: a CBCT study of Persian adults with different sagittal skeletal patterns

Measurement of inter radicular bone width in different growth patterns for determining safe zone for placement of miniscrew implants – A cone beam computed tomography study

Comparación de distancias interradiculares y grosor del hueso cortical en dos sectores del maxilar inferior para colocación de mini implantes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About