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

Abstract

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.

Evaluation of interradicular distance in class II malocclusion for mini-implant insertion: A CBCT study

“…Generally, the most site at level 6 mm from CEJ and at level 8 mm from CEJ is suitable for mini-implant insertion except between central and lateral. The safer area between (6-7) gives a large buccal and middle inter-radicular distance Similar findings were reported by [22] and also by [19] and [14] , and in contrasting Poggio et al, 2006 [16] who reported that the site of (6-7) and (4-5) is safer. The minimum inter-radicular spaces were observed on the buccal aspect of both jaws between the central and lateral incisors and this finding agrees with a study by Seyed Hossein Moslemzadeh et al [14] .…”

“…A minimum of 1 mm clearance from the alveolar bone around the mini implant has been suggested for periodontal health. Thus, the inter-radicular distance should be more than 3 mm for mini-implant placement [22] . The current study showed buccal inter-radicular distance wider than the middle interradicular distance in most sites in the upper and lower jaw and the differences were significant at P-value<0.05 this may be attributed to root anatomy, root angulation, and tooth position.…”

Analysis of the dimensions of buccal and palatal bone wall in the maxillary anterior esthetic zone: a cone-beam computed tomography study

“…In recent years, non-invasive cone-beam computer tomography (CBCT) technology had several advantages in evaluating bone structures around teeth and offers a nancial advantage for the patient [12] . High-resolution images of CBCT can not only measure the bone thickness at the recipient site, but also help to determine the morphological characteristics of the residual alveolar process and evaluate the loss of alveolar bone [13][14][15] and allows full 3D characterization of alveolar bone. Although some CBCT studies have been conducted to analyze bone thickness in maxillary teeth, the information regarding bone thickness combined with age and gender factors in the in uence have been under-represented.…”

Evaluation of Optimal Insertion Sites and Angles for Orthodontic Mini-Implants at the Anterior Nasal Spine Region Based on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

“…Consequently, in most patients, only the apical portion of the dental roots is present in the ANS region. Therefore, the apical inter-radicular space between these roots is larger than that between the middle part, rendering it more likely to accommodate mini-implants [35,36] without damaging the roots.…”