Evaluation of Orthodontic Mini-Implant Placement in the Maxillary Anterior Alveolar Region in 15 Patients by Cone Beam Computed Tomography at a Single Center in South India

Abstract

Background In this study, we aimed to evaluate orthodontic mini-implant placement in the maxillary anterior alveolar region by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in 15 patients at a single center in South India. Material/Methods A total of 15 CBCT scans of orthodontic patients after completion of leveling and aligning stage were included. The thickness of labial alveolar bone, labio-palatal bone, and inter-radicular distance between the maxillary central incisors (U1-U1), maxillary central and lateral incisor (U1–U2), and maxillary lateral incisor and canine (U2–U3) at vertical levels 4 mm, 6 mm, and 8 mm above the interdental cementoenamel junction were measured. Descriptive statistics, ANOVA, and Tukey post hoc tests were done to assess the differences among the groups. An independent t test was done to analyze differences by sex. Results The thickness of cortical bone in the labial region was higher in the U2–U3 site than in the U1-U1 site, at a height of 4 mm. Also, there was a significant difference between 4 mm and 8 mm heights in the U2–U3 region. No significant difference was noted in bone dimensions among men and women and in the labio-palatal bone thickness among the different sites. The inter-radicular distance was the highest between the U2–U3 site, while it was the lowest in the U1–U2 site. Conclusions The findings from this center showed that when CBCT was used to evaluate orthodontic mini-implant placement in the maxillary anterior alveolar region, the U2–U3 and U1-U1 locations at heights between 6 mm to 8 mm apical to the interdental cementoenamel junction were optimal for placement of the mini-implants.

A cone beam computed tomography study on inter-radicular bone to determine the safe zone for miniscrew implants placement

“…9,10 For instance, Smith et al found that class II disorder generally tend to exhibit narrower inter-radicular areas, in particular within the maxilla, which is consistent with our observations. [11][12][13] Conversely, class III disorder frequently showed wider bone dimensions at the apical stage, corresponding to similar findings by Johnson et al 14 This concurrence emphasizes the significance of considering growth styles when planning orthodontic remedies, specifically those involving miniscrew implants, to make sure the safe and effective placement of those gadgets.…”

A CBCT Assessment of Orthodontic Mini-Implant Placement

“…According to Yu Murugesan et al , CBCT can be utilized to assess the placement of orthodontic mini-implants in the maxillary anterior alveolar area. [ 2 ]…”

Evaluation of Optimal Insertion Sites and Angles for Orthodontic Mini-Implants at the Anterior Nasal Spine Region Based on Cone-Beam Computed Tomography

“…Consequently, in most patients, only the apical portion of the dental roots is present in the ANS region. Therefore, the apical inter-radicular space between these roots is larger than that between the middle part, rendering it more likely to accommodate mini-implants [35,36] without damaging the roots.…”