Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography

Fayed, Mona M. Salah; Pazera, Pawel; Katsaros, Christos

doi:10.2319/121009-709.1

Cited by 124 publications

(145 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The thickness of the alveolar cortical bone was found to be often less than 1 mm buccally in the entire maxilla and anteriorly in the mandible, corroborating earlier reports. 5,7,[10][11][12] Thus, the accuracy of the micro-CT measurements was high Figure 3a. Sinus perforation can occur during mini-implant insertion.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different references have been used for measuring the thickness of the cortical bone, eg, the palatal plane, 12 the Frankfort horizontal plane, 13 the occlusal plane, 7 the mandibular plane, 8 the perpendicular to the bone surface, 10,11 of the local insertion site and the long axis of adjacent teeth. 5,6 We opted for the latter method because it seems to be clinically applicable.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 The thickness of human cortical bone in these areas has been assessed by conventional computed tomography (CT) [5][6][7][8] and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). [9][10][11][12][13] More detailed information can be achieved using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Indeed, compared to CBCT and CT, micro-CT scanning offers an enhancement of voxel quality and a reduction in voxel size, providing higher precision imaging.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An evaluation of insertion sites for mini-implants

Laursen

Melsen

Cattaneo

2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: (1) To report the thickness of the cortical bone in insertion sites commonly used for orthodontic mini-implants, (2) to assess the impact of a change in insertion angle on primary cortical bone-to-implant contact, and (3) to evaluate the risk of maxillary sinus perforation. Materials and Methods: At autopsy, 27 human samples containing three to five adjacent teeth were excised and scanned using a table-top micro-computed tomography system. Bone thickness measurements were taken at 45u and 90u to the long the axis of the adjacent teeth, simulating a mini-implant insertion at the mid-root level. Results: In the maxilla, the overall mean cortical thickness at 90u was 0.7 mm buccally in the lateral region, 1.0 mm buccally in the anterior region, and 1.3 mm palatally. In the mandible, the mean cortical thickness was 0.7 mm buccally and 1.8 mm lingually in the anterior region; 1.9 mm buccally and 2.6 mm lingually in the lateral region. Changing the insertion angle from 90u to 45u increased the cortical bone-to-implant contact by an average of 47%. Perpendicular insertion at the mid-root level only rarely interfered with the sinus, whereas apically inclined insertion increased the risk of sinus perforation. Conclusions: Buccally and palatally in the maxilla and buccally in the anterior mandible, the thickness of the alveolar cortical bone is often less than 1 mm. In contrast, the alveolar cortical bone is frequently thicker than 2 mm laterally in the mandible. Changing the insertion angle to 45u will generally enhance implant stability but increase the risk of perforation to the maxillary sinus. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:222-229.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An evaluation of insertion sites for mini-implants

Laursen

Melsen

Cattaneo

2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…4 Thus, placement in interdental spaces restricts the choice of placement sites, biomechanics of orthodontic treatment, and size of mini-implants as the spaces are not always adequate to accommodate mini-implants with varying dimensions. 23 It is therefore recommended that for placement in interradicular spaces, implants should be smaller than 1.5 mm in diameter and 6 mm in length. 21,24 The commercial design used in this study has these dimensions and showed significantly compromised stability compared with the new designs (N1 and N2).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical stability assessment of novel orthodontic mini-implant designs: Part 2

Hong¹,

Truong²,

Song³

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

; Won Moon a ABSTRACT Objective: To assess the mechanical stability of a newly revised orthodontic mini-implant design (N2) compared with a design introduced in Part 1 of the study (N1) and the most widely-used commercially-available design (CA). To evaluate the mean buccal bone thickness of maxillary and mandibular posterior teeth using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: From the CBCT scans of 20 patients, six tomographic cross-sections were generated for each tooth. Buccal bone thickness was measured from the most convex point on the bone to the root surface. CA (1.5 mm in diameter and 6 mm in length), N1, and N2 (shorter and narrower than N1) were inserted in simulated bone with cortical and trabecular bone layers. Mechanical stability was compared in vitro through torque and lateral displacement tests. Results: The bone thickness ranged from 2.26 to 3.88 mm. Maximum insertion torque was decreased significantly in N2 compared to N1. However, force levels for all displacement distances and torque ratio were the highest in N2, followed by N1 and CA (a 5 .05). Conclusions: Both torque and lateral displacement tests highlighted the enhanced stability of N2 compared with CA. Design revisions to N1 effectively mitigated N1's high insertion torque and thus potentially reduced microdamage to the surrounding bone. The N2 design is promising as evidenced by enhanced stability and high mechanical efficiency. Moreover, N2 is not limited to placement in interradicular spaces and has the capacity to be placed in the buccal bone superficial to the root surface with diminished risk of endangering nearby anatomic structures during placement and treatment. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:1001-1009

show abstract

“…Buccolingual thickness and cortical bone thickness were also obtained to determine the dimensions of the required implants. 4 Orthodontic mini-implants with sizes 1.5 × 11.6 mm were placed (Aarhus mini-implants, Denmark), one in the buccal and one in the palatal region of the 26 (Fig. 5).…”

Section: Mini-implant Placement In the Maxillamentioning

confidence: 99%

Maxillary Molar Intrusion using Mini-implants to gain vertical Space in the Antagonist Arch for Rehabilitation with Implant Prosthesis: An Interdisciplinary Approach

Jain¹,

Dugal²,

Shinde³

2015

International Journal of Clinical Implant Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Long-term edentulism leads to the encroachment of the space by the antagonist teeth, which interfere with the occlusion, function, and most importantly the vertical space required for replacement of the teeth. Dental implant therapy has taken over conventional fixed dental prosthesis as a treatment option since the last few decades. Minimum biomechanical requirement for the height of the implant prosthesis makes it imperative for the clinician to modify the height of the opposing tooth. Overcoming the conventional technique of tooth reduction, use of temporary anchorage devices like mini-implants, for tooth intrusion, provides a minimally invasive approach. This article describes a case where mini-implants were activated using elastics for maxillary molar intrusion to create space for the implant prosthesis to replace the missing mandibular molars.

show abstract

Optimal sites for orthodontic mini-implant placement assessed by cone beam computed tomography

Cited by 124 publications

References 17 publications

An evaluation of insertion sites for mini-implants

An evaluation of insertion sites for mini-implants

Mechanical stability assessment of novel orthodontic mini-implant designs: Part 2

Maxillary Molar Intrusion using Mini-implants to gain vertical Space in the Antagonist Arch for Rehabilitation with Implant Prosthesis: An Interdisciplinary Approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About