Safe regions of miniscrew implantation for distalization of mandibular dentition with CBCT

Li, Haibo; Wu, Xiaoxue; Jun, Tan; Li, Xiao

doi:10.1186/s40510-019-0297-6

Cited by 20 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These latter sites showed average values between 1.8 and 4.9 mm, that is below the minimum cut‐off value proposed by Nucera et al, 9 thus representing unreliable areas for an insertion site. Additionally, a gradual increase in mandibular buccal shelf thickness was observed in the posterior and basal directions, in agreement with other studies 9,18,28 …”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Additionally, a gradual increase in mandibular buccal shelf thickness was observed in the posterior and basal directions, in agreement with other studies. 9,18,28 The buccal shelf showed greater height in the region mesial to the second molar and lower height in the distal region, in contrast to the studies of Nucera et al 9 and Elshebiny et al, 18 who found greater values in more posterior regions. Since the length of commercially available extra-alveolar mini-screws is 10-12 mm, the height of the mandibular buccal shelf was sufficient for the insertion of any extra-alveolar miniscrew in any region and vertical level evaluated in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of the mandibular buccal shelf for orthodontic anchorage: Influence of side, gender and skeletal patterns

Aleluia

Duplat

Crusoé‐Rebello

et al. 2021

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To evaluate bone height and thickness in the mandibular buccal shelf region and to compare differences between anatomical sites according to gender, side and vertical and sagittal skeletal patterns. Settings and sample population: Multislice computed tomography (MSCT) images of 94 subjects (51 females and 43 males) were previously obtained as part of preoperative planning for orthognathic surgery. Methods: Measurements were performed in three different regions of the mandibular buccal shelf: mesially, towards the central groove and distally to the second molars. Bone thickness measurements were obtained perpendicularly 3, 5 and 7 mm below the bone crest towards the mandible outer cortex. Bone height was measured 3 mm away from the bone crest perpendicularly to the outer cortex of the base of mandible. Results: There was an increase in bone thickness in the posterior and basal directions. The increase in bone thickness ranged from 1.8 to 7.1 mm. Greater bone height was found in the anterior direction. The increase in bone height ranged from 17.5 to 22.5 mm. Hypodivergent and Class III subjects showed significantly greater bone thickness (P < .05). Significantly greater bone height was found mesially to the second molar in Class III subjects compared with Class I subjects (P < .05) and in hyperdivergent males compared with hypodivergent males (P < .05). Conclusions: The region distal to the second molar is the most appropriate for the insertion of extra-alveolar mini-screws in terms of bone thickness. Hypodivergent and Class III subjects showed greater bone thickness in the mandibular buccal shelf region.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Assessment of the mandibular buccal shelf for orthodontic anchorage: Influence of side, gender and skeletal patterns

Aleluia

Duplat

Crusoé‐Rebello

et al. 2021

Orthod Craniofacial Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study concluded that when facing limited inter-radicular distance, multiple impacted teeth and extended maxillary sinus, CBCT guided techniques is strongly suggested (17). Liu et al, investigated the anatomy of the mandibular buccal shelf with CBCT to assess appropriate region of miniscrew insertion for distalization of mandibular dentition (22,23) the results suggested buccal alveolar bone thickness increase from premolar to the molar and from crest to the mandibular roots. The buccal inter-radicular spaces were smallest between mesiodistal roots of the second molar.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Quantitative Assessment of Posterior Maxillary Arch for Orthodontic Mini-screw Insertion Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography- a Cross Sectional Analysis

Valizadeh

Zafarmand

Hasanyazdi

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aimThe aim of this study is to assess the cortical bone thickness and inter-radicular distance between posterior maxillary teeth using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).Methods and materialCone beam computed tomography records of 35 patients (70 quadrants) from maxilla were evaluated. The images were analyzed using NNT viewer Software (Version 23). The measurements were made on axial sections at 2, 4, 6 and 8 mm from the CEJ. The optimal sites were defined in terms of (a) mesiodistal palatal or buccal inter-radicular distance, (b) alveolar cortical bone thickness and (c) palatal or buccal safe depth of bone for mini-screw insertion. Descriptive statistics, paired T-test and repeated measure ANOVA were used to analyze the data.ResultsThe mean buccal inter-radicular distance was lowest between first and second molar (2.44 mm) and highest between first and second premolar (3.28 mm). The mean palatal inter-radicular distance was lowest between first and second premolar (3.64 mm) and highest between second premolar and first molar (5.30 mm).The mean buccal safe depth was lowest between canine and first premolar (1.96 mm) and highest between first and second molar (2.61 mm). The mean palatal safe depth was lowest between second premolar and first molar (3.35 mm) and highest between first and second molar (3.56 mm). The thinnest and thickest buccal cortical thickness was detected on canine and first molar (1.04 mm) and on the second premolar and second molar (1.56 mm). ConclusionThe quantity and quality of the maxillary alveolar process is an important factor to decide where to insert the orthodontic mini screws, necessitating careful preoperative evaluation.

show abstract

“…The growth pattern of an individual was not considered in this study. 13 The present study accounts for the facial divergence, and the site for buccal shelf implant placement between distobuccal of the first molar and mesiobuccal of the second molar is suitable when the screw is placed at an obtuse degree angulation. A significant finding of our study is that the amount of cortical bone available is more when the buccal screw is inserted at 30° to the occlusal plane which is in accordance with the study of Chang et al We found high statistically significant differences in the angulation of bone placement distal to the second molar for both the hyperdivergent and hypodivergent groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Cortical Bone Anatomy of Mandibular Buccal Shelf for Mini Implant Placement in Different Facial Divergence: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

Trivedi¹,

Jani²,

Hirani³

et al. 2020

J Indian Orthod Soc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The purpose of this study was to use measurements from cone beam computed tomography scans to quantify the cortical bone thickness of mandibular buccal shelf region and preferable site for buccal shelf implant placement in 10 hyperdivergent and 10 hypodivergent patients. Method: 20 cone beam computed tomographies were equally divided based on divergence. 6 sites were examined: mesial of first molar (6M), middle of first molar (6Mi), interdental between the first and second molar (Id), mesial of second molar (7M), middle of second molar (7Mi), and distal of second molar (7D). The study quantified the mandibular buccal shelf relative to its angle of slope, the cortical bone thickness measured perpendicular to the bone surface, the amount of cortical bone 30° angle to the bone surface. The cortical bone thickness was measured perpendicular and at a 30° angle at 3, 5, and 7 mm from the alveolar crest. Result: Significant change is seen at the buccal shelf slope at 6M ( P = .001) and further increase in this angle till 7D ( P = .003). Mean amount of cortical bone for hyperdivergent group at 7D is 4.77 ± 0.68 mm and for hypodivergent group is 3.86 ± 0.70 mm. Statistically significant differences were noted at insertion site at 90° and 30° for both groups at 3, 5, and 7 mm from the alveolar crest. Conclusion: Preferable site for buccal shelf implant placement is distal to the mandibular second molar. The maximum amount of cortical bone is found distal to the second molar 7 mm vertically from alveolar crest when the buccal shelf implant is placed at 30° angulation for hyperdivergent group.

show abstract

Safe regions of miniscrew implantation for distalization of mandibular dentition with CBCT

Cited by 20 publications

References 19 publications

Assessment of the mandibular buccal shelf for orthodontic anchorage: Influence of side, gender and skeletal patterns

Assessment of the mandibular buccal shelf for orthodontic anchorage: Influence of side, gender and skeletal patterns

Quantitative Assessment of Posterior Maxillary Arch for Orthodontic Mini-screw Insertion Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography- a Cross Sectional Analysis

Comparative Evaluation of Cortical Bone Anatomy of Mandibular Buccal Shelf for Mini Implant Placement in Different Facial Divergence: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About