Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study

Kalra, Shilpa; Tripathi, Tulika; Rai, Priyank; Kanase, Anup

doi:10.1186/s40510-014-0061-x

Cited by 26 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(24 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Based on cross-referencing, one additional study was included [ 17 ]. The final selection included 17 studies: [ 3 , 5 , 6 , 17 – 30 ] 15 observational studies [ 3 , 5 , 18 – 30 ] and 2 RCTs [ 6 , 17 ] and no systematic reviews. Two studies were included for two different clinical questions/radiographs [ 18 , 19 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Six studies were included [ 17 , 26 – 30 ]: 4 addressed CQ#7.1 [ 26 , 28 – 30 ] and considered five outcome measures (7.1.1–7.1.5), and two addressed CQ#7.2 [ 17 , 27 ] and considered two outcome measures (7.2.1 and 7.2.2). Alqerban et al [ 26 ] compared the diagnostic accuracies of OPT and CBCT for the localization of impacted canines and the detection of canine-induced root resorption of maxillary incisors.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline

Kapetanović¹,

Oosterkamp²,

Lamberts

et al. 2020

Radiol med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives Radiographs are considered essential in orthodontics. However, their diagnostic value and indications for use are still uncertain, while exposure to radiation carries health risks. This study aimed to report on the development of a clinical practice guideline on orthodontic radiology. Methods A Guideline Development Taskforce was set up. The GRADE methodology was used for development and the RIGHT Statement for reporting of the guideline. We systematically reviewed articles to address the main clinical question: how different types of radiographs contribute to orthodontic diagnosis, treatment planning and post-treatment outcome evaluation. After a literature search and data extraction, we formulated conclusions and assessed the strength of the evidence according to the GRADE method. Both literature conclusions and the most important considerations, such as patient preferences, organizational matters and expert opinions were taken into account to finally issue recommendations. Results 7 clinical questions focused on orthopantomograms, lateral cephalograms, hand-wrist radiographs, peri-apical radiographs, bitewings, antero-occlusal radiographs, and cone-beam computer tomographic imaging. The literature search lead to 484 unique studies, of which 17 were included in the analysis. The strength of evidence of the conclusions was graded low or very low. We formulated considerations and took them into account when issuing the 13 clinical recommendations to address the clinical questions. Conclusions There was a considerable lack of scientific evidence on this topic. Nonetheless, this guideline provides clinicians with a tool for decision-making regarding radiographic records while enhancing patient radiation protection. More research of higher quality is recommended for a future update.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline

Kapetanović¹,

Oosterkamp²,

Lamberts

et al. 2020

Radiol med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Three-dimensional digital radiographs allow to provide similar density of the specimens in which mini-implants were driven. Furthermore, CBCT radiogram allows to examine the proper mini-implant placement between roots, especially in areas with difficult anatomy [ 19 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Er:YAG laser, piezosurgery, and surgical drill for bone decortication during orthodontic mini-implant insertion: primary stability analysis—an animal study

Matys

Flieger²,

Tenore

et al. 2017

Lasers Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is important to identify factors that affect primary stability of orthodontic mini-implants because it determines the success of treatment. We assessed mini-implant primary stability (initial mechanical engagement with the bone) placed in pig jaws. We also assessed mini-implant insertion failure rate (mini-implant fracture, mini-implants to root contact). A total of 80 taper-shaped mini-implants (Absoanchor® Model SH1312-6; Dentos Inc., Daegu, Korea) 6 mm long with a diameter of 1.1 mm were used. Bone decortication was made before mini-implant insertion by means of three different methods: Group G1: Er:YAG laser (LiteTouch®, Light Instruments, Yokneam, Israel) at energy of 300 mJ, frequency 25 Hz, fluence 38.2 J/cm2, cooling 14 ml/min, tip 1.0 × 17 mm, distance 1 mm, time of irradiation 6 s; Group G2: drill (Hager & Meisinger GmbH, Hansemannstr, Germany); Group G3: piezosurgery (Piezotom Solo, Acteon, NJ, USA). In G4 group (control), mini-implants were driven by a self-drilling method. The primary stability of mini-implants was assessed by measuring damping characteristics between the implant and the tapping head of Periotest device (Gulden-Medizinteknik, Eschenweg, Modautal, Germany). The results in range between − 8 to + 9 allowed immediate loading. Significantly lower Periotest value was found in the control group (mean 0.59 ± 1.57, 95% CI 0.7, 2.4) as compared with Er:YAG laser (mean 4.44 ± 1.64, 95% CI 3.6, 5.3), piezosurgery (mean 17.92 ± 2.73, 95% CI 16.5, 19.3), and a drill (mean 5.91 ± 1.52, 95% CI 5.2, 6.6) (p < 0.05). The highest failure rate (33.3%) during mini-implant insertion was noted for self-drilling method (G4) as compared with G1, G2, and G3 groups (p < 0.05). The small diameter decortication by Er:YAG laser appeared to provide better primary stability as compared to drill and piezosurgery. Decortication of the cortical bone before mini-implant insertion resulted in reduced risk of implant fracture or injury of adjacent teeth. The high initial stability with a smaller diameter of the mini-implant resulted in increased risk of fracture, especially for a self-drilling method.

show abstract

“…Studies have assessed either the bone quality or the bone quantity individually; to our knowledge, our study is the first study to assess the bone quality and bone quantity in the same patients [ 1 , 4 , 24 , 25 ]. Our objective is to measure the palatal bone thickness and palatal bone density at different sites in the palate (in the center of palate and 4 mm away from the center) in a population of growing and non-growing Caucasian subjects, who previously received CBCT scans for orthodontic treatment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender and growth variation in palatal bone thickness and density for mini-implant placement

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe objective was to compare the palatal bone thickness (PBT) and palatal bone density (PBD) in the anterior, middle, and posterior part of the palate in males and females.MethodsThis retrospective study reviewed cone beam computed tomography scans of 359 patients. The scans were divided into 99 growing males, 105 growing females, 74 non-growing males, and 81 non-growing females. The measurements of PBT and PBD were made in between the canine and first premolar, the first premolar and second premolar, the second premolar and first molar, and the first molar and second molar. The measurements were made in the center of the palate and 4 mm away from the center. ANOVA was used to analyze the PBT and PBD in different areas between four different groups.ResultsThe PBT was lower (P < 0.0001) as we moved from the anterior to the posterior palate. The PBT was more (P < 0.001) in the center of the palate than 4 mm away from the center, except in between the canine and first premolar. The growing male and non-growing male had higher (P < 0.0001) PBT than the growing female and non-growing female in between the canine and first premolar and the first premolar and second premolar both in the center and 4 mm away from it. The PBD was higher (P < 0.05) in between the canine and first premolar area at the center of the palate and between the second premolar and first molar 4 mm away from the center in all the experimental groups.ConclusionsThere exists a definite gender and growth variation in the PBT and PBD in different parts of the palate. Palatal bone thickness between the males and females revealed that the males had significantly higher PBT than the females.

show abstract

Evaluation of orthodontic mini-implant placement: a CBCT study

Cited by 26 publications

References 26 publications

Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline

Orthodontic radiology: development of a clinical practice guideline

Er:YAG laser, piezosurgery, and surgical drill for bone decortication during orthodontic mini-implant insertion: primary stability analysis—an animal study

Gender and growth variation in palatal bone thickness and density for mini-implant placement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About