Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2010
DOI: 10.2319/011909-40.1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Palatal Bone Density in Adult Subjects: Implications for Mini-Implant Placement

Abstract: Objectives: To evaluate palatal bone density to allow for better selection of palatal implant anchorage sites. Materials and Methods: Computed tomographic (CT) images were obtained from 15 males and 15 females (mean age, 27 years; range, 23-35 years). Bone density was measured in Hounsfield units (HU) at 80 coordinates at regular mediolateral and anteroposterior intervals along the midpalatal suture. Results: Bone densities ranged from 805 to 1247 HU. A significant difference between male and female groups was… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

5
44
0
8

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 68 publications
(57 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
(20 reference statements)
5
44
0
8
Order By: Relevance
“…This interesting finding is consistent with the results of other studies on the bone densities at midpalatal mini-implant placement sites 24-26. On the other hand, Choi et al,27 who investigated the bone densities at interdental areas with simulated placement of mini-implants, found no difference between the genders.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…This interesting finding is consistent with the results of other studies on the bone densities at midpalatal mini-implant placement sites 24-26. On the other hand, Choi et al,27 who investigated the bone densities at interdental areas with simulated placement of mini-implants, found no difference between the genders.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 91%
“…The palate is probably the most favorable area for miniscrew placement because there is easy access, low risk of damaging important anatomical structures and there is attached keratinized tissue along its entire length. [2][3][4][5][6] Moreover, mini-implants placed in these regions have the advantage of not interfering in the tooth movement. 7 This area is chosen for placing mini-implants when forward or backward movements of posterior teeth are required, 8 intrusion of maxillary teeth 9,10 or traction of impacted maxillary teeth.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The AP has advantages for implantation Figure 9 Double-Y plate application following RME: (a) lateral cephalometric findings; (b) cephalometric superimposition (anterior cranial base) of initial (solid line) and post-treatment (dotted line); (c) intra-oral photographs show treatment progress in occlusal view, initial and post-treatment findings and was reported to have great depth (Kang et al, 2007;Baumgaetel, 2009) and high density (Moon et al, 2010). Success of the anchorage devices is a key to the overall success of orthodontic treatment, because anchorage failure fundamentally upsets treatment planning.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 97%