Quantitative cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of palatal bone thickness for orthodontic miniscrew placement

Gracco, Antonio; Lombardo, Luca; Cozzani, Mauro; Siciliani, Gíuseppe

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.01.027

Cited by 145 publications

(146 citation statements)

References 15 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

119

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…23,24 Twenty points in each patient's palate were chosen for measurements 16 ( Figure 1). The first step was to locate the incisive foramen.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,13 In addition to knowing the cortical bone thickness in this region, it is necessary to know the total bone thickness in order to choose the appropriate mini-implant length to avoid perforations in the nasal cavity floor. [2][3][4]7,[14][15][16][17] Knowledge of soft tissue thickness also helps in determining the overall implant length 18 and implant collar height. 19 Clinical examination, panoramic and cephalometric radiographs have limitations when assessing the amount of bone tissue in the palate.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Tomographic mapping of the hard palate and overlying mucosa

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to measure the thickness of the hard palate and its overlying mucosa using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), for purposes of miniscrew placement. The sample comprised 36 CBCT scans of patients aged 12 to 52 years from a database of the Orthodontics Department of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Paracoronal views of the palatal region were reconstructed at 4, 8, 16 and 24 mm posterior to the incisive foramen. In each reconstruction measurements were taken at the suture, 3 mm and 6 mm bilaterally to it. Wilcoxon's test verified the differences between the selected regions. Total bone height decreased from the anterior to the posterior region. In cross sections 4, 16 and 24, bone height decreased from the suture laterally to the 3 mm region and then increased in the 6 mm region. The cortical thickness does not seem to be a concern because it presented a mean thickness of at least 1 mm at all sites evaluated. The measurements of the mucosa thickness decreased from lateral to median and from anterior to posterior regions. The most suitable areas for miniscrew placement in the palate are located 4 mm posterior to the incisive foramen, in the median or paramedian regions 3 mm adjacent to the suture.

show abstract

“…23,24 Twenty points in each patient's palate were chosen for measurements 16 ( Figure 1). The first step was to locate the incisive foramen.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Tomographic mapping of the hard palate and overlying mucosa

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The current standard of care for overlay-free imaging in orthodontics is conventional CT. 41 Low-cost office-based CBCT imaging has recently been explored for orthodontic applications, including assessment of palatal bone thickness, skeletal growth patterns, dental age estimation, upper airway evaluation, and visualization of impacted teeth. [42][43][44][45][46][47] Although preliminary results are encouraging, established cross-sectional techniques such as conventional CT provide superior image quality of dental and surrounding structures for advanced orthodontic treatment planning. 41 Low dosing requirements appear to remain a benefit of CBCT when compared with conventional CT, with a routine orthodontic CBCT study delivering an effective dose of Յ61.1 Sv compared with 429.7 Sv for multisection CT. 48 Lateral cephalograms deliver 10.4 Sv in comparison, though without the benefit of 3D structural visualization.…”

Section: Orthodonticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conebeam CT of the Head and Neck, Part 2: Clinical Applications

Miracle¹,

Mukherji²

2009

AJNR Am J Neuroradiol

294

207

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARY: Conebeam x-ray CT (CBCT) is being increasingly used for point-of-service head and neck and dentomaxillofacial imaging. This technique provides relatively high isotropic spatial resolution of osseous structures with a reduced radiation dose compared with conventional CT scans. In this second installment in a 2-part review, the clinical applications in the dentomaxillofacial and head and neck regions will be explored, with particular emphasis on diagnostic imaging of the sinuses, temporal bone, and craniofacial structures. Several controversies surrounding the emergence of CBCT technology will also be addressed. C onebeam CT (CBCT) is an advancement in CT imagingthat has begun to emerge as a potentially low-dose crosssectional technique for visualizing bony structures in the head and neck. The physical principles, image quality parameters, and technical limitations relevant to CBCT imaging were discussed in Part 1 of this 2-part series. The second part presented here will highlight the evidence related to CBCT applications in head and neck as well as dentomaxillofacial imaging. Controversial aspects of this technology will also be addressed, including limitations in image quality and its often officebased operational model.CBCT was first adapted for potential clinical use in 1982 at the Mayo Clinic Biodynamics Research Laboratory. 1 Initial interest focused primarily on applications in angiography in which soft-tissue resolution could be sacrificed in favor of high temporal and spatial-resolving capabilities. Since that time, several CBCT systems have been developed for use both in the interventional suite and for general applications in CT angiography. 2,3 Exploration of CBCT technologies for use in radiation therapy guidance began in 1992, 4,5 followed by integration of the first CBCT imaging system into the gantry of a linear accelerator in 1999. 6 The first CBCT system became commercially available for dentomaxillofacial imaging in 2001 (NewTom QR DVT 9000; Quantitative Radiology, Verona, Italy). Comparatively low dosing requirements and a relatively compact design have also led to intense interest in surgical planning and intraoperative CBCT applications, particularly in the head and neck but also in spinal, thoracic, abdominal, and orthopedic procedures. [7][8][9][10][11] Diagnostic applications in CT mammography and head and neck imaging are also under evaluation. 12-14 The technical and clinical considerations pertaining to CBCT imaging in many of these applications have been the subjects of several recent reviews. [15][16][17][18][19] The recent review by Dörfler et al 16 of the neurointerventional applications of CBCT is of particular interest to the field of neuroradiology.The discussion below will focus on the diagnostic and treatment-planning applications of CBCT in dentomaxillofacial and head and neck imaging. Commercially available CBCT systems for dentomaxillofacial imaging include the CB MercuRay and CB Throne (Hitachi Medical, Kashiwi-shi, Chiba-ken, Japan), 3D Accuitomo products (J. Mor...

show abstract

“…6 Based on their reduced invasiveness, ease of insertion and removal, the possibility of immediate loading, and their versatility, these devices were increasingly used, even in combination with distalizing devices. Paramedian and midpalatal insertion sites seem to be the most suitable for this purpose 7,8 since they do not interfere with dental movement in the maxillary arch, even if they cannot be recommended in the presence of unerupted palatal canines. On the contrary, buccal interradicular sites may sometimes involve a specific surgical protocol to avoid root damage, require additional radiographic examinations, 9 and represent an obstacle to spontaneous retraction of premolars during distalization of the first molar until screws are inserted.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison between direct vs indirect anchorage in two miniscrew-supported distalizing devices

Cozzani

Fontana

Maino

et al. 2016

The Angle Orthodontist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare two distalizing devices supported by palatal miniscrews, the MGBM System (MGBM) and the Distal Screw appliance (DS), in dental Class II patients. Materials and Methods: Pretreatment (T1) and postdistalization (T2) lateral cephalograms of 53 Class II malocclusion subjects were examined. MGBM consisted of 29 patients (16 males, 13 females) with a mean pretreatment age of 12.3 6 1.5 years; DS consisted of 24 patients (11 males, 13 females) with a mean pretreatment age of 11.3 6 1.2 years. The mean distalization time was 6 6 2 months for MGBM and 9 6 2 months for DS. Initial and final measurements and treatment changes were compared by means of a Student's t-test. Results: Maxillary superimpositions showed that the maxillary first molar distalized an average of 5.5 mm in the MGBM and 3.2 mm in the DS between T1 and T2; distal molar tipping was greater in the MGBM (10.3u) than in the DS (3.0u). First premolar showed a mean mesial movement of 1.4 mm, with a mesial tipping of 4.4u in the MGBM; on the contrary, first premolar showed a distal movement of 2.2 mm, with a distal tipping of 6.2u, in the DS. Conclusions: The MGBM system resulted in greater distal molar movement and less treatment time, resulting in more efficient movement than was associated with the DS; DS showed less molar tipping during distalization. (Angle Orthod. 2016;86:399-406.)

show abstract

Quantitative cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of palatal bone thickness for orthodontic miniscrew placement

Cited by 145 publications

References 15 publications

Tomographic mapping of the hard palate and overlying mucosa

Tomographic mapping of the hard palate and overlying mucosa

Conebeam CT of the Head and Neck, Part 2: Clinical Applications

Comparison between direct vs indirect anchorage in two miniscrew-supported distalizing devices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About