Variations in the alveolar bone morphology in maxillary molar area: a retrospective CBCT study.
Alveolar bone morphology
Cone-beam computed tomography
Maxillary retromolar space
Temporary anchorage device
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Aug 2024
01 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
27
01
2024
accepted:
08
07
2024
medline:
2
8
2024
pubmed:
2
8
2024
entrez:
1
8
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study quantitatively analyzed the anatomic structure of the alveolar bone in the maxillary molar region at three potential locations for Temporary Anchorage Device (TAD) placement. Additionally, the study compared the variability in this region across different age groups, sagittal skeletal patterns, vertical facial types, and sexes. In this retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study, the buccal alveolar bone was analyzed in the posterior molar area of 200 patients, the measurement items include buccal alveolar bone height, alveolar bone thickness, interradicular distance, and maxillary retromolar space. Buccal alveolar height was greatest in the U56 region. The interradicular space was largest in the U56 region and increased from the alveolar crest to the sinus floor. Buccal alveolar bone thickness was highest in the U67 region and generally increased from the alveolar crest to the sinus floor. The maxillary retromolar space gradually increased from the alveolar crest to the root apex. TADs are safest when placed in the buccal area between the maxillary second premolar and the first molar, particularly at the 9 mm plane. The U67 region is the optimal safe zone for TAD placement for maxillary dentition distalization. TADs placement in adolescents can be challenging. Maxillary third molar extraction can be considered for maxillary dentition distalization.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study quantitatively analyzed the anatomic structure of the alveolar bone in the maxillary molar region at three potential locations for Temporary Anchorage Device (TAD) placement. Additionally, the study compared the variability in this region across different age groups, sagittal skeletal patterns, vertical facial types, and sexes.
METHODS
METHODS
In this retrospective cone-beam computed tomography study, the buccal alveolar bone was analyzed in the posterior molar area of 200 patients, the measurement items include buccal alveolar bone height, alveolar bone thickness, interradicular distance, and maxillary retromolar space.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Buccal alveolar height was greatest in the U56 region. The interradicular space was largest in the U56 region and increased from the alveolar crest to the sinus floor. Buccal alveolar bone thickness was highest in the U67 region and generally increased from the alveolar crest to the sinus floor. The maxillary retromolar space gradually increased from the alveolar crest to the root apex.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
TADs are safest when placed in the buccal area between the maxillary second premolar and the first molar, particularly at the 9 mm plane. The U67 region is the optimal safe zone for TAD placement for maxillary dentition distalization. TADs placement in adolescents can be challenging. Maxillary third molar extraction can be considered for maxillary dentition distalization.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39090625
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04588-w
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-04588-w
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
872Subventions
Organisme : Beijing Municipal Natural Science Foundation - Haidian Original Innovation Joint Fund
ID : L222001
Organisme : Clinical Research Foundation of Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology
ID : PKUSS-2023CRF301
Organisme : National Natural Science Foundation of China
ID : 51972005
Organisme : Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region key Research and Development program
ID : 2022BEG02031
Organisme : Beijing Municipal Science Technology Commission
ID : Z211100002921066
Organisme : National key Clinical Specialty Construction project
ID : PKUSSNMP-201902
Organisme : National clinical key discipline construction project
ID : PKUSSNKT-T202102
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Karlsson I, Bondemark L. Intraoral maxillary molar distalization. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(6):923–9.
doi: 10.2319/110805-390
pubmed: 17090171
Liou EJ, Pai BC, Lin JC. Do miniscrews remain stationary under orthodontic forces? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2004;126(1):42–7.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.06.018
Gandhi V, Upadhyay M, Tadinada A, et al. Variability associated with mandibular buccal shelf area width and height in subjects with different growth pattern, sex, and growth status. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2021;159(1):59–70.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.11.020
Alharbi F, Almuzian M, Bearn D. Miniscrews failure rate in orthodontics: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2018;40(5):519–30.
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjx093
pubmed: 29315365
Xin Y, Wu Y, Chen C, et al. Miniscrews for orthodontic anchorage: analysis of risk factors correlated with the progressive susceptibility to failure. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2022;162(4):e192–202.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2022.07.013
Park J, Cho HJ. Three-dimensional evaluation of interradicular spaces and cortical bone thickness for the placement and initial stability of microimplants in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2009;136(3):e3141–315.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.01.023
Liu H, Wu X, Yang L, et al. Safe zones for miniscrews in maxillary dentition distalization assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2017;151(3):500–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.07.021
Deng Y, Sun Y, Xu T. Evaluation of root resorption after comprehensive orthodontic treatment using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT): a meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2018;18(1):116.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0579-2
pubmed: 29945577
pmcid: 6020331
Liu H, Xi X, Liu D. Three-dimensional (3D) quantitative evaluation of the morphological changes of the upper anterior alveolar bone after retraction of a maxillary incisor. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):295.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-02976-2
pubmed: 37189105
pmcid: 10186753
Cook VC, Timock AM, Crowe JJ, et al. Accuracy of alveolar bone measurements from cone beam computed tomography acquired using varying settings. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2015;18(Suppl 1):127–36.
doi: 10.1111/ocr.12072
pubmed: 25865541
Li Y, Deng S, Mei L, et al. Accuracy of alveolar bone height and thickness measurements in cone beam computed tomography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2019;128(6):667–79.
doi: 10.1016/j.oooo.2019.05.010
pubmed: 31311766
Pecora NG, Baccetti T, McNamara JA Jr. The aging craniofacial complex: a longitudinal cephalometric study from late adolescence to late adulthood. Am J Rthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;134(4):496–505.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.11.022
Swasty D, Lee J, Huang JC, et al. Cross-sectional human mandibular morphology as assessed in vivo by cone-beam computed tomography in patients with different vertical facial dimensions. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2011;139(4 Suppl):e377–89.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.10.039
Maino BG, Maino G, Mura P. Spider screw: skeletal anchorage system. Prog Orthod. 2005;6(1):70–81.
pubmed: 15891786
Poggio PM, Incorvati C, Velo S, Carano A. Safe zones: a guide for miniscrew positioning in the maxillary and mandibular arch. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(2):191–7.
pubmed: 16539541
El-Dawlatly MM, Abou-El-Ezz AM, El-Sharaby FA, Mostafa YA. Zygomatic mini-implant for class II correction in growing patients. J Orofac Orthop. 2014;75(3):213–25.
doi: 10.1007/s00056-014-0214-z
pubmed: 24825833
Liou EJ, Chen PH, Wang YC, et al. A computed tomographic image study on the thickness of the infrazygomatic crest of the maxilla and its clinical implications for miniscrew insertion. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131(3):352–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.04.044
Ardekian L, Oved-Peleg E, Mactei EE, et al. The clinical significance of sinus membrane perforation during augmentation of the maxillary sinus. J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2006;64(2):277–82.
doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2005.10.031
pubmed: 16413901
Brettin BT, Grosland NM, Qian F, et al. Bicortical vs monocortical orthodontic skeletal anchorage. Am J Rthod Dentofac Orthop. 2008;134(5):62.
Mah SJ, Kim JE, Ahn EJ, et al. Analysis of midpalatal miniscrew-assisted maxillary molar distalization patterns with simultaneous use of fixed appliances: a preliminary study. Korean J Orthod. 2016;46(1):55–61.
doi: 10.4041/kjod.2016.46.1.55
pubmed: 26877983
pmcid: 4751302
Tang X, Cai J, Lin B, et al. Motivation of adult female patients seeking orthodontic treatment: an application of Q-methodology. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2015;9:249–56.
pubmed: 25709410
pmcid: 4332290