Volume 7, Issue 2 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences Spring 2022)                   J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2022, 7(2): 55-61 | Back to browse issues page


XML Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Valizadeh S, Hafezi L, Hasanzdeh Azhiri A. Interradicular Space in the Anterior Mandible on CBCT Scans of an Iranian Population. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci. 2022; 7 (2) :55-61
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-336-en.html
1- Dental Clinic, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad Univer-sity, Tehran, Iran , LHAFEZZI@yahoo.com
3- Department of Orthodontics , Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:   (362 Views)
Abstract
Background and Aim: This study aimed to assess the bone
thickness at the interradicular spaces in the anterior mandible on cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans of patients to find appropriate sites for mini-implant and miniscrew placement.

Materials and Methods: This analytical cross-sectional study was conducted on 161 CBCT scans of patients (98 females and 63 males) between 18 to 50 years old presenting to the School of Dentistry of
Islamic Azad University in 2020. Cross-sectional images with 1 mm slice thickness were evaluated to measure the bone thickness at the interradicular areas at 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 mm distance from the mandibular alveolar crest. The measurements made from the distal surface of right canine to the distal surface of left canine teeth were recorded. The CBCT scans had been taken by Rotograph Evo 3D CBCT scanner, and were analyzed by OnDemand3D software. Data were statistically analyzed by t-test.

Results: Bone thickness at 11 sites in the anterior mandible was significantly higher in males (P<0.05). By an increase in depth in both males and females, the mean thickness of bone increased (P<0.05). The maximum mean bone thickness in males and females was at 18 mm depth between the central incisors.
Conclusion: To find a correct site for mini-implant and miniscrew placement, it should be noted that bone thickness would be greater at deeper areas, and by moving from the premolar site towards the
incisors.
Full-Text [PDF 895 kb]   (152 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (91 Views)  
Type of Study: Original article | Subject: Radiology

References
1. Ardani IGAW, Indharmawan R, Hamid T. The effect of miniscrew length and bone density on anchorage resistance: An in vitro study. Int Orthod. 2019 Sep;17(3):446-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.ortho.2019.06.004] [PMID]
2. Liu H, Wu X, Tan J, Li X. Safe regions of miniscrew implantation for distalization of mandibular dentition with CBCT. Prog Orthod. 2019 Dec 9;20(1):45. [DOI:10.1186/s40510-019-0297-6] [PMID] [PMCID]
3. Woods PW, Buschang PH, Owens SE, Rossouw PE, Opperman LA. The effect of force, timing, and location on bone-to-implant contact of miniscrew implants. Eur J Orthod. 2009 Jun;31(3):232-40. [DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjn091] [PMID]
4. Chhatwani S, Rose-Zierau V, Haddad B, Almuzian M, Kirschneck C, Danesh G. Three-dimensional quantitative assessment of palatal bone height for insertion of orthodontic implants - a retrospective CBCT study. Head Face Med. 2019 Apr 1;15(1):9. [DOI:10.1186/s13005-019-0193-9] [PMID] [PMCID]
5. Limeres Posse J, Abeleira Pazos MT, Fernández Casado M, Outumuro Rial M, Diz Dios P, Diniz-Freitas M. Safe zones of the maxillary alveolar bone in Down syndrome for orthodontic miniscrew placement assessed with cone-beam computed tomography. Sci Rep. 2019 Sep 10;9(1):12996. [DOI:10.1038/s41598-019-49345-0] [PMID] [PMCID]
6. Sugumaran S, Jain RK, Kumar A, Sinnadurai S, Shelonimissier M. Evaluation of the Vertical Bone Height of the Palate using CBCT for Placing Micro Implants-A Pilot Study. Journal of Clinical & Diagnostic Research. 2019 Feb 1;13(2): 1-4. [DOI:10.7860/JCDR/2019/39692.12617]
7. Nucera R, Bellocchio AM, Oteri G, Farah AJ, Rosalia L, Giancarlo C, Portelli M. Bone and cortical bone characteristics of mandibular retromolar trigone and anterior ramus region for miniscrew insertion in adults. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Mar;155(3):330-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.04.025] [PMID]
8. Murugesan A, Sivakumar A. Comparison of bone thickness in infrazygomatic crest area at various miniscrew insertion angles in Dravidian population - A cone beam computed tomography study. Int Orthod. 2020 Mar;18(1):105-14. [DOI:10.1016/j.ortho.2019.12.001] [PMID]
9. Becker K, Unland J, Wilmes B, Tarraf NE, Drescher D. Is there an ideal insertion angle and position for orthodontic mini-implants in the anterior palate? A CBCT study in humans. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019 Sep;156(3):345-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.09.019] [PMID]
10. Sabec Rda C, Fernandes TM, de Lima Navarro R, Oltramari-Navarro PV, Conti AC, de Almeida MR, et al. Can bone thickness and inter-radicular space affect miniscrew placement in posterior mandibular sites? J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Feb;73(2):333-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.joms.2014.08.015] [PMID]
11. Jaisinghani AP, Pradhan T, Keluskar KM, Takane V. Treatment of a transmigrated and an impacted mandibular canine along with missing maxillary central incisor: A case report. Orthodontic Waves. 2019 Jun 1;78(2):84-92. [DOI:10.1016/j.odw.2019.04.002]
12. Venugopal A. Interarch traction for impacted canines. APOS Trends Orthod. 2020;10(1):60-1. [DOI:10.25259/APOS_133_2019]
13. Lee KJ, Joo E, Kim KD, Lee JS, Park YC, Yu HS. Computed tomographic analysis of tooth-bearing alveolar bone for orthodontic miniscrew placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Apr;135(4):486-94. [DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.05.019] [PMID]
14. Hwang K, Hollinger JO, Chung RS, Lee SI. Histomorphometry of parietal bones versus age and race. J Craniofac Surg. 2000 Jan;11(1):17-23. [DOI:10.1097/00001665-200011010-00004] [PMID]
15. Rossi M, Bruno G, De Stefani A, Perri A, Gracco A. Quantitative CBCT evaluation of maxillary and mandibular cortical bone thickness and density variability for orthodontic miniplate placement. Int Orthod. 2017 Dec;15(4):610-24. [DOI:10.1016/j.ortho.2017.09.003]
16. Lim JE, Lee SJ, Kim YJ, Lim WH, Chun YS. Comparison of cortical bone thickness and root proximity at maxillary and mandibular interradicular sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2009 Nov;12(4):299-304. [DOI:10.1111/j.1601-6343.2009.01465.x] [PMID]
17. Park JB, Lee JE, Kim K, Yoo JT, Kim Y, Kook YA, et al. The thickness of alveolar bone at the mandibular canine and premolar teeth in normal occlusion. J Craniofac Surg. 2014 May;25(3):1115-9. [DOI:10.1097/SCS.0000000000000767] [PMID]
18. Aleluia RB, Duplat CB, Crusoé-Rebello I, Neves FS. Assessment of the mandibular buccal shelf for orthodontic anchorage: Influence of side, gender and skeletal patterns. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Mar;24 Suppl 1:83-91. [DOI:10.1111/ocr.12463] [PMID]
19. Mallick S, Murali PS, Kuttappa MN, Shetty P, Nair A. Optimal sites for mini-implant insertion in the lingual or palatal alveolar cortical bone as assessed by cone beam computed tomography in South Indian population. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2021 Feb;24(1):121-9. [DOI:10.1111/ocr.12415] [PMID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:
CAPTCHA

Send email to the article author


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb