Evaluation of bone depth, cortical bone, and mucosa thickness of palatal posterior supra-alveolar insertion site for miniscrew placement.
CBCT
Cortical bone thickness
Orthodontic miniscrew
Palatal bone depth
Palatal expansion
Palatal miniscrew insertion site
Palatal mucosa
TADs
Journal
Progress in orthodontics
ISSN: 2196-1042
Titre abrégé: Prog Orthod
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 100936353
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jun 2022
06 Jun 2022
Historique:
received:
09
02
2022
accepted:
15
04
2022
entrez:
6
6
2022
pubmed:
7
6
2022
medline:
9
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The use of palatal miniscrew offers the possibility to improve the effectiveness of orthodontic expansion devices. Palatal expanders supported by miniscrew can be applied with different clinical protocols. Some authors proposed the use of four palatal miniscrews during miniscrew-supported palatal expansion to maximize skeletal effects in young adults' treatment. However, bone availability decreases in the posterior paramedian palatal regions, making the positioning of the two-posterior paramedian palatal miniscrews challenging, when it is performed avoiding nasal cavities invasion. Some authors proposed miniscrews insertion in a specific region located laterally to the palatal process of the maxillary bone, and apically relatively to the dento-alveolar process. The aim of this study was to evaluate the bone thickness, cortical bone thickness, and mucosae depth of this anatomical site that, in this study, was defined as palatal posterior supra-alveolar insertion site. The evaluation of bone availability of palatal posterior supra-alveolar insertion site at different antero-posterior levels showed that the maximum amount of total bone thickness was found between the second premolar and the first molar. At this level total bone, thickness is significantly (p < .05) greater compared to the other sagittal sites and it offers on average around 2 mm of extra bone depth for miniscrew placement. Cortical bone thickness is adequate for primary miniscrew stability. Overall, cortical bone thickness considered at different insertion sites showed significant statistically (p < .05) differences. The findings of this study showed that palatal mucosa is particularly thick with average values ranging from 4 to 7 mm, and its extension ultimately affects miniscrew length selection. Palatal mucosa thickness showed no clinically significant differences comparing different sagittal and vertical insertion sites. Data also showed that palatal mucosal thickness slightly significantly increases (p < .05) with the inclination of the insertion axis relative to the occlusal plane. Finally, study findings showed that vertical growth pattern can significantly affect considered outcomes (p < .05). Palatal posterior supra-alveolar insertion site is an appropriate site for posterior insertion of palatal miniscrews. Considering high anatomical variation preliminary CBCT evaluation is important to achieve optimal miniscrew placement.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The use of palatal miniscrew offers the possibility to improve the effectiveness of orthodontic expansion devices. Palatal expanders supported by miniscrew can be applied with different clinical protocols. Some authors proposed the use of four palatal miniscrews during miniscrew-supported palatal expansion to maximize skeletal effects in young adults' treatment. However, bone availability decreases in the posterior paramedian palatal regions, making the positioning of the two-posterior paramedian palatal miniscrews challenging, when it is performed avoiding nasal cavities invasion. Some authors proposed miniscrews insertion in a specific region located laterally to the palatal process of the maxillary bone, and apically relatively to the dento-alveolar process. The aim of this study was to evaluate the bone thickness, cortical bone thickness, and mucosae depth of this anatomical site that, in this study, was defined as palatal posterior supra-alveolar insertion site.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The evaluation of bone availability of palatal posterior supra-alveolar insertion site at different antero-posterior levels showed that the maximum amount of total bone thickness was found between the second premolar and the first molar. At this level total bone, thickness is significantly (p < .05) greater compared to the other sagittal sites and it offers on average around 2 mm of extra bone depth for miniscrew placement. Cortical bone thickness is adequate for primary miniscrew stability. Overall, cortical bone thickness considered at different insertion sites showed significant statistically (p < .05) differences. The findings of this study showed that palatal mucosa is particularly thick with average values ranging from 4 to 7 mm, and its extension ultimately affects miniscrew length selection. Palatal mucosa thickness showed no clinically significant differences comparing different sagittal and vertical insertion sites. Data also showed that palatal mucosal thickness slightly significantly increases (p < .05) with the inclination of the insertion axis relative to the occlusal plane. Finally, study findings showed that vertical growth pattern can significantly affect considered outcomes (p < .05).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Palatal posterior supra-alveolar insertion site is an appropriate site for posterior insertion of palatal miniscrews. Considering high anatomical variation preliminary CBCT evaluation is important to achieve optimal miniscrew placement.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35661931
doi: 10.1186/s40510-022-00412-9
pii: 10.1186/s40510-022-00412-9
pmc: PMC9167746
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
18Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Eur J Orthod. 2015 Dec;37(6):589-95
pubmed: 25564503
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Apr;159(4):e363-e375
pubmed: 33573898
Dental Press J Orthod. 2017 May-Jun;22(3):97-108
pubmed: 28746493
Int Orthod. 2020 Jun;18(2):308-316
pubmed: 32057733
J Clin Orthod. 2013 Feb;47(2):96-107; quiz 139-40
pubmed: 23660767
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Aug;136(2):158.e1-10; discussion 158-9
pubmed: 19651342
J Clin Periodontol. 2020 Apr;47(4):479-488
pubmed: 31912948
J Clin Orthod. 2020 Nov;54(11):690-704
pubmed: 33476295
J Clin Orthod. 2017 Apr;51(4):198-207
pubmed: 28652504
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Aug;142(2):207-12
pubmed: 22858330
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2009 Mar;67(3):563-9
pubmed: 19231781
Cranio. 2012 Jan;30(1):72-9
pubmed: 22435178
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Jul;136(1):104-8
pubmed: 19577156
Angle Orthod. 2018 Nov;88(6):702-709
pubmed: 30102085
Angle Orthod. 2018 Sep;88(5):649-664
pubmed: 29714067
Eur J Orthod. 2021 Jun 8;43(3):245-253
pubmed: 32761047
Prog Orthod. 2017 Nov 1;18(1):34
pubmed: 29090368
J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Jul;36(7):564-8
pubmed: 19538329
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2018 Feb;153(2):262-268
pubmed: 29407504
Med Devices (Auckl). 2020 Mar 18;13:93-106
pubmed: 32256130
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2021 Jul;160(1):147-154
pubmed: 33906772
J Clin Orthod. 2020 Feb;54(2):82-95
pubmed: 32554910
Angle Orthod. 2008 May;78(3):403-8
pubmed: 18416626
Angle Orthod. 2015 Mar;85(2):253-62
pubmed: 25490552
J Investig Clin Dent. 2017 Feb;8(1):
pubmed: 26446347
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2011 Mar;69(3):754-62
pubmed: 21236539