Quantitative evaluation of cortical bone thickness with computed tomographic scanning for orthodontic implants.

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to quantitatively evaluate cortical bone thickness in various locations in the maxilla and the mandible. In addition, the distances from intercortical bone surface to root surface, and distances between the roots of premolars and molars were also measured to determine the acceptable length and diameter of the miniscrew for anchorage during orthodontic treatment. METHODS Three-dimensional computed tomographic images were reconstructed for 10 patients. Cortical bone thicknesses were measured in the buccal and lingual regions mesial and distal to the first molar, distal to the second molar, and in the premaxillary region at 2 different levels. Differences in cortical bone thickness at 3 angles (30 degrees, 45 degrees, and 90 degrees) were also assessed. Distances of the intercortical bone surface to the root surface and the root proximity were also measured at the above areas. RESULTS Significantly less cortical bone thickness was observed at the buccal region distal to the second molar compared with other areas in the maxilla. Significantly more cortical bone was observed on the lingual side of the second molar compared with the buccal side. In the mandible, mesial and distal to the second molar, significantly more cortical bone was observed compared with the maxilla. Furthermore, significantly more cortical bone was observed at the anterior nasal spine level than at Point A in the premaxillary region. Cortical bone thickness resulted in approximately 1.5 times as much at 30 degrees compared with 90 degrees Significantly more distance from the intercortical bone surface to the root surface was observed at the lingual region than at the buccal region mesial to the first molar. At the distal of the first mandibular molar, significantly more distance was observed compared to that in the mesial, and also compared with both distal and mesial in the maxillary first molar. There was significantly more distance in root proximity in the mesial area than in distal area at the first molar, and significantly more distance was observed at the occlusal level than at the apical level. CONCLUSIONS These data show that the safest location for placing miniscrews might be mesial or distal to the first molar, and an acceptable size of the miniscrew is less than approximately 1.5 mm in diameter and approximately 6 to 8 mm in length.

[1]  Hyo-sang Park,et al.  Nonextraction treatment with microscrew implants. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[2]  Doo-Hyung Kim,et al.  Intrusion of posterior teeth using mini-screw implants. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[3]  H. Mitani,et al.  Skeletal anchorage system for open-bite correction. , 1999, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[4]  D B Svanaes,et al.  Reproducibility of rotational panoramic radiography: mandibular linear dimensions and angles. , 1986, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[5]  P. Major,et al.  The accuracy of 4 panoramic units in the projection of mesiodistal tooth angulations. , 2002, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[6]  Shouichi Miyawaki,et al.  Factors associated with the stability of titanium screws placed in the posterior region for orthodontic anchorage. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[7]  R Kanomi,et al.  Mini-implant for orthodontic anchorage. , 1997, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[8]  S. Studer,et al.  The thickness of masticatory mucosa in the human hard palate and tuberosity as potential donor sites for ridge augmentation procedures. , 1997, Journal of periodontology.

[9]  T. Takano-Yamamoto,et al.  Severe anterior open-bite case treated using titanium screw anchorage. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[10]  Sang-Heng Kok,et al.  A prospective study of the risk factors associated with failure of mini-implants used for orthodontic anchorage. , 2004, The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants.

[11]  Lily T. Garcia,et al.  Osseointegration and Occlusal Rehabilitation , 1989 .

[12]  C. Goodacre,et al.  Rigid implant anchorage to close a mandibular first molar extraction site. , 1994, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[13]  G. Holt,et al.  Osseointegrated Titanium Implants , 1986 .

[14]  Giulio Pasta,et al.  Intraoral hard and soft tissue depths for temporary anchorage devices , 2005 .

[15]  S. Huja,et al.  A radiographic evaluation of the availability of bone for placement of miniscrews. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[16]  H. Imhof,et al.  Dental CT and orthodontic implants: imaging technique and assessment of available bone volume in the hard palate. , 2004, European journal of radiology.

[17]  H. Hansson,et al.  Osseointegrated titanium implants. Requirements for ensuring a long-lasting, direct bone-to-implant anchorage in man. , 1981, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[18]  P I Brånemark,et al.  A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. , 1981, International journal of oral surgery.

[19]  Toru Deguchi,et al.  Clinical use of miniscrew implants as orthodontic anchorage: success rates and postoperative discomfort. , 2007, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[20]  Y Zilberman,et al.  Osseous adaptation to continuous loading of rigid endosseous implants. , 1984, American journal of orthodontics.

[21]  B Melsen,et al.  Miniscrews as orthodontic anchorage: a preliminary report. , 1998, The International journal of adult orthodontics and orthognathic surgery.